Personally I’d be in favor of near instantaneous disintegration, like putting someone in the path of a quasar, but at the moment that is too hard to do.
You’re seriously going to stick with the “Big Prison/Big Pharma” conspiracy theory, that it all rests on the profit margin on the drug cocktail for the, erm, 40 people executed per year?
Has anyone ever raised any credible objection to nitrogen asphyxiation? You pass quickly and painlessly into unconsciousness and then die; it’s easily available, cheap and non-toxic. Why has it not been adopted?
Not really. Dropping a large heavy object on someone from a height would have the same effect. Transforming the condemned from a single cohesive living body into a thin paste in a split second is pretty close to “instantaneous disintegration”.
Something like this would work, just get a crane and drop it on the condemned.
Lethal injections are used specifically because they take longer.
The system is preparing for a few years down the road when they start to air executions, so they can sell more advertising for a longer drawn out execution.
I didn’t put forth any conspiracies. Nor did I mention “big pharma/big prison”, however you want to define those phrases.
For example, people could easily get water for pennies a gallon from their taps. But instead, large companies often take that same water, put it into plastic bottles, and charge several dollars of overhead per gallon, and portion it wastefully among ten or so 12 oz bottles instead of delivered continuously on demand.
It’s not better, it’s far more complicated and expensive, and the only people benefiting from that system are water bottling companies themselves and the middlemen who sell it for them. Yet it persists because these companies are very influential.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s human nature.
Stop asking why there isn’t a better method of execution (there is – in fact, there are many); start asking who benefits from the current sub-par situation.
Which companies (by name) are making money selling a complicated cocktail of chemicals and experts to train the executioners, exactly? Drug companies have been actively avoiding selling drugs that might be used for executions for a while now, going to far as to avoid selling drugs to someone that might resell them to a state doing executions. Same thing with experts to train executioners, what companies exactly are the ones doing this and making money off of it? What you’re posting doesn’t seem to match reality.
I don’t know that I buy that. Seems to me you could remain alive and conscious for several minutes after your head is removed from your body.
I’m thinking the pneumatic bolt they use to slaughter cows would work best. The brain trauma should cause instant unconsciousness.
**DrCube **I am a big fan of asking “Who Benefits?”, but the profits from the sale of these drugs for the purposes of execution could not pay for a single lobbyist or make any kind of an influential contribution to a politician or super pac. How are they influencing politicians to insure that lethal injection remains the preferred method of execution?
Current problems with “Lethal Injections”
-
The only maker of Pentobarbitol refuses to sell to States which have Capital Punishment*.
Therefore, other drugs are substituted. -
Medical professionals now refuse to administer the drugs, so a prison employee with no training in IV injections plays “find the vein”. I’m guessing the injection is going on before the needle happens to hit a vein (if it ever does find one) so the dosage actually delivered IV is not the full dose.
-
- in States with “Physician-Assisted Suicide”, the drugs are the stuff the prisons can’t get.
Q: Since the rule for an MD writing the suicide script is:
Less then 6 months to live
In pain
- in States with “Physician-Assisted Suicide”, the drugs are the stuff the prisons can’t get.
wouldn’t a person knowing they were about to be shot up by a prison employee qualify for the 'script? Much less than 6 months, and a real fear fest. Does emotional pain qualify?
Dr. Kevorkian’s 3-drug sequence was quite effective. I’d go with morphine, followed by enough of whatever barbiturate I’ve got to drop a horse. injected into the stomach. Revenge is greatly under-rated.
I happen to favor killing killers and have no problem if their executions resemble what they did to their victims.
And: Yes I WOULD volunteer for Firing Squad (and bring my own bullet), I WOULD throw the switch, drop the pellets into the acid or find a vein. Why is this a problem? - some veins are quite easy to find - the neck has some doozzies. Are we concerned the “patient” might bleed out if we screw up the injection?
If we must have a cui bono hypothesis, it obviously cannot relate to profits on the drug cocktails for 40 executions per year. But I suppose it might relate indirectly to a consequence of controversial execution methods, the delay in executions. It costs a fortune to house inmates on death row. But I don’t know if many (any?) death row facilities are privately run?
In any event, I don’t find it plausible. In opposition to cui bono we have Hanlon’s Razor:
This.
Here is a 2014 article on the idea of using nitrogen asphyxiation as a means of capital punishment. Hmm, “Rapture of the Deep”
So, why not try another method? Consider the beta. You propose a new method and this stirs up commentary on the pros and cons of execution, of course, but also the pros and cons of the proposed method as well as any other methods. Your proposal is then drowned in a sea of media, academic, and activist rebuttal. You find that you can’t argue the merits of your method because you just can’t get To that argument. You have to get through all the other arguments first - and that’s never ending.
I think we ended up with this cocktail because this was where Pharmaceutical companies could stop looking bad, witnesses could stop being shocked, doctor’s could stop quoting the Hippocratic Oath, and governments could say “We’ve got something that [del]looks[/del]is human now”. Overall, I think it’s simply a case of “I don’t want to go through any more hassle than I have to, so the status quo is fine with me.”
As for dropping the Big Rock on someone - well, that’s what the Big Prison / Big Crane people are lobbying for because it gives more profit for the Crane Industrial Association (and you know what That spells!)
Especially since no one is actually making or selling the drug cocktails, and states with capital punishment actually have a hard time getting the correct drugs.
My guess would be that the apparatus could be labeled as a ‘gas chamber’. Cue irrational invocation of Godwin’s law.
Y’know, perhaps they could… train up employees ( or inmates ) who are willing to be executioners.
Sort-of before hand.
No, the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment is more rigorous than that. There are some punishments which government cannot impose, even if done by statute rather than by discretion in judges or government officials.
For example, burning alive, public dissection, disembowelling, and drawing and quartering are all absolutely prohibited by the 8th Amendment.
Other punishments cannot be applied to certain offences. For example, individuals under mental disability or under 18 cannot be executed. Execution cannot be used as a punishment for rape.
I’ve never seen that position being advanced by medical associations. My understanding is that they simply believe that using medical skills to kill is contrary to medical ethics, not that they forbid it for the purpose of ending executions.
Did you ever donate blood?
You would be amazed at the number of trained medical professionals who* suck* at this seemingly simple task. I have personally witnessed nurses and phlebotomists make several attempts at finding veins and fail miserably. Hell, last week my wife had two different nurses poke her multiple times for her IV line while prepping for surgery.
Especially since drug companies are objecting to the use of their products for executions.
Here’s an interesting article about the debate in the medical profession about the ethical implications of physicians assisting in lethal injections. No mention in it that medical associations take this stance to end capital punishment, as suggested by puddleglum.
Rather, the AMA Code of Ethical Practice expressly recognizes that each physician can form their own opinion whether capital punishment is appropriate.
The ethical concerns arise because executions are not a medical treatment; there is no consent from the person being executed; there is no doctor-patient relationship; the involvement of the physician is to harm the individual, not to help him.