What are your feelings about the execution by lethal injection?

Question

that took place in Florida that took 34 minutes for the man to die.
Do you think that they should stop executions altogether? Or not?
Just say how you feel about it.

Answer 1

I don't have a problem with it. He was sentenced to death, and he is now dead! What's the problem??? Just like one of the previous posters stated, he caused his victims and there familes to suffer, so why shouldn't he suffer for an extra 20-30 minutes. Big Freaking Deal!!!!

Answer 2

Lethal injection. As the law stands in most states, whether it be, by electricity or injection it's the law. And I do believe some laws need to be changed due to mishaps in these situations. If the prison Docs can't put a needle in right and give the right dose, then we need to change things in the criminal justice system. Tim McVeigh - who requested death - I think he should have been required to be put in general population and they wouldn't have to worry about a mishap. The prison strong arms would have done it for us. But, they seem to protect the ones that are the worse. I don't know why! I live in Okla-coma where the bombing occur ed. I have seen it first hand, before they torn down the Murrah building and it was a very disturbing sight to see. Why let someone choose the easy way out. Why did they give him a choice and why didn't they make him suffer a little bit more? The rules the laws and at this point in history, we would be better off if Madonna had written the laws. It's sad...........

Answer 3

I'm against the death penalty altogether. While I agree if they are guilty (meaning they actually did it) the suffering they caused is much greater than any suffering they'll go through, there are simply too many times when people are convicted wrongly.

To my understanding since DNA evidence has become more allowed and used in courtrooms, retrials of quite a few individuals who were convicted wound up being overturned and the convict let go because DNA evidence proved it wasn't them who did it. And by quite a few I mean by last count that I heard of about a year ago 502 convictions had already been overturned. That is 502 people who could have been killed for something they didn't do.

And to my understanding that justs counts the ones who are still alive. There were at least 200 more who had already been killed that were posthumously exonerated (cleared of the conviction but after they had already been executed). But a lot of good it did them, right. I don't want to have to answer to God because I supported killing someone who turned out to be innocent (I see supporting the killing of an innocent person to be just as bad as killing them yourself).

Leaving them in jail for the rest of their lives is still a punishment for the guilty ones, and it does the job of keeping them away from a society to whom they are still dangerous. However, if it turns out they were convicted wrongly and we find out, we still have a chance to help them. They may have lost some of their life, but they still have something left of which to make a new life. But once dead, there is no coming back. I cannot support the death penalty because of that reason.

Answer 4

The death penalty, by any means it is done, is both good and necessary in my mind. Think about it, there are not a whole lot of crimes that receive the death panalty as punishment. If you get rid of the death penalty and let the person rot in jail, we, the taxpayers, pay to keep that person fed, clothed, and taken care of while he/she is there. Also, it degrades the worth of the person that they hurt. If we refuse to give punishment befitting the crime, then the victim and the victim's family are insulted and degraded by our actions. I realize that the death penalty seems ruthless and cruel in some people's mind, but just because some people are uncomfortable with it we should not get rid of it and remove the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crimes.

Stopping executions is stopping true justice for the victim and the victim's family. I say follow Texas and, rather than trying to get rid of it, install and express lane. If there are three or more eyewitnesses to the crime that caused you to get the death penalty in Texas, you do not sit on Death Row for years, you go straight to the front of the line. Now that is justice.

Answer 5

If it is necessary to execute someone, I would think a bullet to the brain would be much faster, much cheaper and definetly painless.
Personally I think a sentence of life without parole, locked up in a cage and welded shut would be a better option.
But the main problem is the time lag- 20 years passed between the sentencing and the execution. This way there is absolutely no deterrent effect on would-be criminals.

As for that guy in Florida? boo hoo.

Answer 6

Why? After all the suffering he has caused to the victim's family, shouldn't he suffer a LITTLE?

Anyway, a bullet is much cheaper, and more humane. A good marksman can kill on the first shot, every time.

The ACLU just wants lethal injection because it is more expensive, and they want to stop the death penalty altogether. So now, they can point out how expensive the death penalty is, even though it was their idea to make it so!

Answer 7

It may have taken 34 minutes to die, but they did not feel it. It is 3 injections, the first one knocks the inmate out, next stops breathing and third stops their heart.
My question is why do they "sterilize" the inmates arm before inserting the needle, I don't think germs are an issue when you are killing someone.
Me honestly, I'm all about and eye for an eye and I think lethal injection is a joke.

Answer 8

I'm not for executions, however, I don't see the point in a lethal injection. If someone is on death row it is because he brutally murdered one or more people, shouldn't he have a more painful death as a payback, like the electric chair?

Answer 9

criminal outcomes do no longer possibly paintings to deter crime. maximum criminals do no longer assume to get caught, much less tried, convicted, and sentenced. they are scarcely greater possibly to think approximately the possibility of a criminal penalty than they are to think approximately how they might modern their protection in courtroom. So at the same time as the dying penalty does little to deter homicide, penal complex likewise does little to deter housebreaking. that doesn't propose we ought to consistently do away with the two. the purpose of the dying penalty and penal complex is to guard society via removing miscreants from our midst. penal complex accomplishes that for a era, and the dying penalty accomplishes that completely. The dying penalty is run in a humane way through fact we've developed previous the thought that torturing somebody to dying reward society or that criminal outcomes are a useful expression of vengeance. the reality that it quite is now administered in a particularly painless way does not undermine its suitable purpose. in spite of the shown fact that, warehousing the dangerously sociopathic for a life-time grants an ongoing threat of existence and limb to the various workers and volunteers who paintings in prisons, and additionally grants a threat to different prisoners who carry the opportunity of rehabilitation and launch. the theory of "an eye fixed for an eye fixed" as initially got here upon interior the Code of Hammurabi meant equality below the regulation a minimum of insofar as a tycoon does not get a lesser penalty than a foul one — no longer that the punishment must be routinely equivalent to the wear and tear. neither is the undertaking between Israel and Palestinians.

Answer 10

I agree with the previous answer about a firing squad being much easier. But it is considered "barbaric" by many.
The only thing I don't like about this particular execution was that they waited for over 20 years to do it. The fringe political element want it to be painless. I don't think it should be.