Plus, the drug companies don’t want to have their products used to kil people, and when the drug company is from another country, they can be prohibited by that country’s laws from supplying drugs fo killing. So the three drug cocktail, not general anaesthesia.
Yes, this was the point I was trying to make.
I’m pretty sure you can notice the one guy that doesn’t have noticeable recoil. Also, you have 5 guys that volunteered to shoot someone to death. I really doubt they are hoping no thinks they were the one that killed someone. This whole blank business has never made sense to me.
True.
Although someone trained and skilled in determining the level of unconsciousness in a patient would probably do a better job of making sure someone is truly unconscious and non-responsive even with less than ideal pharmaceuticals than a random corrections person.
Ditto.
I don’t think the state should be in the business of killing people. But we do know how to humanely kill mammals. Vets, and even slaughtering houses, do it all the time. Somehow, no state uses any of the methods we use when we aren’t looking for a gorey spectacle.
The legal standard is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, not “shadow of a doubt”, which would be a much higher standard. And it is not always the case that such cases have been properly proven. Convictions for murder have been set aside for reasons such as improper evidence, improper conduct by the police, improper conduct by the prosecutor. ETA: and incompetency by the defence counsel.
Governor George Ryan of Illinois imposed a moratorium on all executions when a group of journalism students as part of a class project gathered the evidence to prove that Anthony Porter was wrongfully convicted. The Illinois Supreme Court set the conviction aside, based on evidence gathered by students.
Ultimately, after the results of a commission of inquiry, Ryan commuted all death sentences. He explained why:
There is a lot of distrust of the competency of governments and government workers, whether warranted or not. “Close enough for government work”, etc.
And yet, when it comes to the most intrusive state action, killing a citizen, people are willing to trust government to get it right, 100% of the time?
Makes no sense.
As Justice Potter Stewart said:
These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual. For, of all the people convicted of rapes and murders in 1967 and 1968, many just as reprehensible as these, the petitioners are among a capriciously selected random handful upon whom the sentence of death has in fact been imposed.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/in-ryans-words-i-must-act
That runs into the drug issue I mentioned. The European Union and many other countries prohibit the sales of drugs manufactured in their country to countries that use them for execution purposes (i.e, the United States). That would apply to drugs that are used for pet euthanasia. If those drugs were used to kill people by the state, they could no longer be sold in the United States, which would have an impact on humane death for Fido.
There are also federal food and drug restrictions on drugs cleared only for veterinary use. Those vet drugs can’t be used on people, even if it’s to kill them. So domestically produced pet euthanasia drugs can’t be used on humans.
One state was dinged by the federal government a few years ago for improperly using drugs that weren’t cleared for human use. Other states have stockpiled drugs that they have, but stocks are running low. Some states now have compounding pharmacies prepare their drugs for executions. That’s all done in secret, so there is no way to verify quality control.
Maybe the federal restrictions will change, once Elon finds a way to make money off it.
But, we’re getting a bit far away from killing people by gunfire, so I’ll stop.
I don’t intend to stand on either side of the capital punishment equation—certainly not as the executioner and definitely not as the condemned (unless, of course, they ever decide that tearing mattress labels is a capital offense). That said, if we exclude a medically supervised procedure involving general anesthesia followed by lethal injection, my preferred method of execution would be a non-penetrating captive bolt pistol jolt to the forehead (like better slaughter houses use).
Why? For starters, it’s designed to cause instant unconsciousness, ideally before pain even registers. It’s also straightforward to administer, reducing the risk of botched attempts (unlike lethal injection, where a missed vein can cause serious complications). Plus, bolt pistols are engineered to deliver just the right amount of force to precisely the right spot—meaning no unnecessary suffering due to misplaced shots. If we’re talking about humane execution, that seems like the best choice.
We’ll move back.
I have pondered about family members executing the vermin that killed their child. I’m going with tied at the heels and swinging upside down over a bonfire while family members take potshots with shotguns loaded with game loads so the perp doesn’t die too quickly when hit. After which every mention of the killer is removed from the Internet to prevent his friends from cult-like commemoration.
No, no exotic deaths. Quick and humane, if we must have the penalty. I’ve thought that executions must be carried out by a victim’s family member (or other involved party). If that person cannot ‘pull the switch’, then the sentence is commuted to life without parole.
(Or better yet, get rid of Capital Punishment altogether.)
I believe family members of murder victims are invited to attend the execution.
Yes. But while they are the ones seeking vengeance and are there to ‘see justice be done’, they’re not the ones actually doing it. If they feel so strongly that someone has to die, let them initiate the process themselves instead of hiring it out.
Not to quibble, because I think this is actually a really important point, but the state absolutely must be, at times, “in the business of killing people”. One of the core, definitional aspects of a state is the monopoly on the use of violence; and at times, there is no way to enforce that monopoly on violence without the state resorting to violence itself.
This is why it is so important for a state to be legitimate. In a democratic society, the state gains its legitimacy by the consent of the governed, as determined by a free and fair elections.
And that’s the reason why family members of the victims aren’t deputized for executions, or why society frowns on vigilante justice in general. Even if they align with the goals of the state, non-state actors using violence on behalf of the state weakens the state’s monopoly on violence, and leads to the risk of actors who do not represent the will of the people using violence to illegitimately coerce others or the state itself.
There are many who would gladly execute a murderer thinking (rightfully or wrongfully) that they were handing out justice.
I don’t believe Cormac McCarthy wanted to portray Anton Chigurh as the humane one. Interesting twist.
I am under the impression that it would generate an enormous amount of extra revenue if those “jobs” were to be sold on auction.
And I would choose “none of the above”, thank you very much. According to Amnesty International the countries that have regularly applied the death penalty in the last years are: China, Egypt, Iran, Irak, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, North Korea, Singapur, South Sudan, Yemen and the United States of America. I miss Russia in that list (will check) but apart from that the list comes very close to the list of countries I don’t plan to visit any time soon. Oh, and BTW: those countries prove that the death penalty does not work to disuade murderes. Apart from Singapur all have higher murder rates than an average European country.
Humane execution? Try fentanyl. What did you say? It’s illegal? What a strange coincidence. I thought you meant an oxymoron.
Because I would rather die standing up.
People on death row aren’t known for making the best choices.
There is evidence that with lethal injection you die in intense pain and not instantly. Being paralyzed makes it more sanitary so the witnesses don’t realized you are being tortured.
I meant for myself. Everyone else got that.
And what do you think those friends might want to do when the victim’s friend or family member didn’t spare their friend? That person is a much more attainable target than the state.
In any case, picking some person closely related to the victim to mete out the punishment (or not) will amount to very unequal treatment under the law. No thanks.