That really should be modified to say that we really should be discussing whether murders and traitors deserve death at all. That’s the question that has to be answered first (in our so-called civilized society).
If it were possible yo do a statistical analysis of everyone in the history of humanity who has died so far, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of those deaths would have entailed pain and suffering. Painless deaths would likely be the exception.
Pain is the body’s response to damage, and killing it is by definite causing damage, so from an evolutionary standpoint death is supposed to hurt.
I always have trouble understanding the objection that our society has to pain and suffering. It’s like we think it is something wrong or unnatural, or that we somehow have some sort of right not to feel it.
Nobody here gets out alive, and for all but a lucky few the thing that kills us is going to hurt a lot, and probably for a long time before it’s finished. That’s just the way it is.
To me, it seems that any pain during the execution itself is actually incidental and not really worthy of comment compared to the immense amount of suffering the inmate undoubtedly goes through in anticipation of the execution during the days weeks and years preceding it. That mental anguish seems monumental compared to whatever few minutes of suffering might be endured
Lest anyone get me wrong, I used to be in favor of the death penalty but now I’m not not.
Because all drugs intended for human consumption must be approved by the food and drug regulatory body. Giving drugs to a human that are not so approved is an offence. States are bound to obey federal law. They cannot just make up concoctions in a back room and give them to an individual. Nor can they buy drugs on the street. That’s called trafficking and carries heavy penalties under federal law.
What happens when the condemned person doesn’t cooperate and holds his breath? AFAIK, that was the reason why executions with poison gas were routinely botched.
You’re assuming the drug companies are American. It’s my understanding that they are not.
It’s a question that has been answered. The answer is “yes”.
The FBI would still have to comply with food an drug regulations for drugs intended for human consumption, as would the states which purchase and use them.
I’m against the death penalty, but if we’re going to do it, use a guillotine and broadcast the execution. 1) It’s painless and quick and 2) public support will dry up pretty fast.
People blaming the anti-DP side are wrong. It’s the pro-DP side who are trying to pretty up executions so no one gets squeamish, in order to maintain public support. And coincidentally, making executions more painful, more expensive, and more difficult to perform correctly.
That’s correct. One of the key drugs in the 3 drug cocktail is only made in Europe. European Community laws prohibit the export of that drug for executions. That’s why there is now a shortage of that drug in the US.
Apparently that drug is not used very much for other purposes, so the ban on export to the US doesn’t have much impact other than on the death states.
However, if the death states then started using other drugs, like pentobarbital and the Michael Jackson anaesthesia, the European export rules would apply o those drugs as well, which could create shortages in drugs commonly used in the medical system.
Because their safety for human use must be assured - so they don’t cause death.
Future generations are going to wonder what the hell was wrong with us. And not just future ones, either.
I don’t want to start an entirely new GQ thread for this, so here goes:
Has there ever been a legal execution by shooting (i. e. firing squad) in the United States that was botched? I don’t think there was.
No recently but yes.
Indeed, and the last botched shooting occurred as late as 1951:
http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/in_another_time/012896.html
The People’s Republic of China has long modelled it’s executions on those of America, along with many other neo-liberal market reforms ( World Leaders in Executions for over Ten Glorious Years ! ), so maybe they can spare some of the necessary.
If nipping down to Walmart is not an option for state governors, then perhaps the US can outsource the killings to China, and have them do it cheaply.
For some bizarre reason, the late, unspeakable, Robert Ludlum never penned a work called The Chapman Protocol.
They could have them approved by the FDA.
I know that can be a long process but at the end of it, what could the FDA’s reason for denying approval?
Or an exemption to FDA rules might be inserted in the relevant laws. Or the judiciary could interpret the laws and clarify that it is not the legislator’s intent to apply safety rules to drugs designed to kill.
I must have missed the memo. Whew! Glad that’s settled.
À la lanterne, citoyens!
How long can you hold your breath? I’ll start counting now… (envisions the classic Lucy routine, with the old lady and the watch).
Holding one’s breath and then suddenly taking in a lungful of painful gas at a much higher concentration than the starting levels produces a very dramatic effect, sure to make even strong prison wardens cry.
Holding one’s breath in an increasingly inert atmosphere should have no effect on anyone who’s raised a child. Their first giant lungful a minute or so in will have no particular effect.
It’s been put to referendum and other public vote many times. Sometimes it’s voted down. Most times it’s voted to continue.
You may disagree and decry the trog majority among us, but being stupid about it gains nothing.
Sure, they could. Just responding to the idea that the FBI could just cook something up in their crime labs and the “problem”'s solved. There are no short cuts.
Also an option. But, would take a considerable debate in the Congress, and presumably could be filibustered in the Senate by death penalty opponents.
Except these aren’t drugs designed to kill. They are drugs which have legitimate medical purposes. There would have to be considerable ambiguity in the statute before the courts could make that ruling.
And there are tools used in routine abortion that have been subject to similar control laws by states wishing to end abortion. Ditto for trivial gun issues.
I get fairly exasperated by such “nibbled to death by cats!” legal approaches, but more so by the structure that allows itself to be nibbled when there are alternatives. Fine, don’t use lethal drugs or require any need for participation of medical personnel whose ethics, reputation or license might be damaged. It seems pretty simple to me.