How can Lethal Injection be "cruel and unusual punishment"? How ridiculous is that?

Question

Effectively there is a moratorium on executions until the Supreme Court rules. Why the constant sideshows by the anti death penalty crowd?Especially when you consider that to the best of my knowledge the Supreme Court has never declared and form of capital punishment unconstitutional. States simply changed to lethal injection in the hope of stopping this incessant bickering over executions being "cruel and unsusual"

Of course it didn't work so perhaps states should just go back to hanging and firing squads,both very humane and still legal forms of execution.Clearly those who bring these cases have no idea what the founding fathers meant when the forbid cruel punishments,because they certainly didn't mean no executions.

Answer 1

Look at it this way, "cruel and unusual punishment" is a phrase from our constitution. So I agree with you, lets go back to the kind of capital punishment that our founders used. They were the AUTHORS of the Constitution and, following its ratification, had no problem executing convicted criminals by hanging or firing squad. Problem solved! Argument over...I'll even donate the rope.

Answer 2

On average, an execution by lethal injection from start to finish takes about to 45 minutes, during which the prisoner is fully conscious for 35-40 mins. This is the time it takes whilst they are strapped down, a vein is found etc (if the prisoner is a drug addict, or a person is frightened, this may take longer as drug use and fear causes veins to contract, making them harder to hit).

Imagine the mental torture a person goes through during this time knowing they are being prepared for and being put to death.

PLUS

As a person is paralysed by the 1st injection, no-one really can tell whether they feel pain because they can't move. In theory the 1st injection (sodium thiopental - a barbiturate) is meant to send them to sleep, but as any anaethetist will tell you, it is very hard to judge the dose needed to do this, with the result that there is the strong potential for a prisoner to still be awake and consious when they are injected with potassium (nice and caustic) that induces a heart attack (very painful feeling of your chest being crushed) and pancuronium bromide which paralyses their lungs (agonizing death through suffocation). As it stands, the current lethal injection procedure can just give the appearance of serenity and a humane death than an ACTUAL humane death.

Doesn't that sound a wee bit cruel to you?

Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, basic morality and human decency says that if you are going to kill someone judicially, that death should be quick and painless (and the Founding Fathers agreed with this by banning "cruel and unusual" punishments).

Answer 3

No, a hanging may not break the person's neck and therefore they'd have to choke to death while a firing squad could possibly - even though unlikely - not make an instantly fatal shot and they person would then have to bleed to death. There's one 100% execution technique - the guillotine! Off with their heads!

Honestly though, in the United States the death penalty is only used in murder cases. These people took a life in a situation that was not self-defense or to protect another person. Why does it matter if they feel some pain and suffering before they die? They deserve what they're getting. I say hang them, it's cheaper and reusable as opposed to the drugs for the lethal injection, the bullet from the firing squad, or the electricity from the chair.

Answer 4

Totally agree. Harsher punishment is what this country needs. Stiffer for every crime. Look at other countries. Singapore for instance. They shoot you on the spot for drug dealing. As a result, there are hardly any drug rings. EVERY person who murders should be executed within a reasonable amount of time. They are looking into this in the UK. I believe theirs is a 3year agenda. 3 years for the family to prove otherwise. If the person is executed and the family proves it after the fact, there is a set amount the government has for compensation. Our county is undoubtedly too lax on this subject. The laws and regulations that our forefathers put in place were to keep order. What order is there if you kill someone, get prison time and in lots of cases live a better life than you did before? It would be a huge wake up call for both us and the countries who watch us and think we are weak to make half time at a football game consist of the public execution of those who are on the list for that day. The crime stats would drop within a few months of instating an actual punishment for these individuals. If rapists were dismembered (their units) and violent robbers had their dominant hand cut off, it would not only be just, but dissuade future events of these natures.
Henry Rollins said it best.

Answer 5

I've always kinda wondered about cruel AND unusual. I mean does it have to be both? It doesn't say cruel OR unusual, so if it's 'usual' then it wouldn't matter if it was 'cruel' or not - right?

But back to you question. Eventually it will boil down to the question of just what constitutes cruelty. Some people will tell you that death itself is cruel, so it wouldn't really matter HOW someone was executed. To them the fact that they were executed is cruel.

Since there are people who don't want criminals executed, then perhaps they should be the ones who are required to house them, and feed them, and be responsible for their actions if they escape the premises.

Answer 6

Documented evidence at several recent executions where lethal injection was used showed that the defendant was in extreme pain and that the execution took much longer than it was supposed to. Either the mix of lethal drugs or the insertion of the needle into the vein was botched.

We don't stoop to the level of murderers and torturers in the way we execute capital defendants. It matters to us as a free democracy that we treat all with respect and dignity, including convicted murderers. That is a fundamental principle of the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It is also a core value to virtually every religion in the world. This is why it matters that death sentences are not carried out in a cruel and inhumane manner.

Answer 7

It depends really on how the courts interpret "cruel and unusual". The death penalty itself may be "cruel".

Personally, I think that if you allow a murderer to live, you are automatically condemning at least one more innocent civilian to death instead, and you don't get to pick which one.

The courts must also take up the mantle to protect civilians against stupid leaders and idiot activists who have less than 6 functioning neural synapses and can't figure this out.

Answer 8

"Cruel" generally means an act in which pleasure is derived from the violence visited on the another creature, or when unnecessarily painful means are used to arrive at a conclusion where less painful methods could be employed. Just as you cannot argue "deterrent" to support the death penalty, it isn't a good idea to say that killing others (whether state-sponsored or not) makes you feel good.

"Unusual" just means you can't sentence someone to be burned at the stake anymore. There are several state sponsored means to murder our fellow humans, we have to choose one of those (burying someone in bees SOUNDS fun, but it's unusual, so the Supreme Court siad you cna't use it- get a state to ADOPT its use, and it no longer is considered "unusual".

While I believe in captial punishment, it is not for the reasons you describe (although I am constantly branded a liberal -but only in YA-). Our jails and prisons SHOULD be houses of rehabilitation, not just houses of isolation from society at large. The death penalty would pertain only to those criminals adjudged to be so completely bereft of any socially redeeming or valuable attributes as to be considered completely unsalvagable. At that point (and there are a few of them out there; Ted Bundy was one, Manson is another) then yes, ending their miserable, tortured existances could actually be considered a release for them and a benefit to society as a whole.

The fact is, we have been happily putting people to death for decades in this nation, but now, with DNA testing, MANY of those convicted by "juries of their peers" are found to be not guilty at all, as they had claimed all along (they didn't take 'plea bragains' in hopes it would all go away, Senator Craig). Now a society with a conscience would ask itself, "If THOSE people were innocent, how many OTHER innocent people did we kill because of bad investigations or false testimony?" I agree with the sentiment, "Better to free 100 guilty men, than to condemn 1 innocent man to death".

But back to lethal injections.

1. Doctors are not allowed to administer the drugs which end a prisoner's life. The Hyppocratic Oath's Number One Rule ("First, do no harm"), plus Federal "Anti-Kevorkian" laws forbids medical personnel from administering the drugs, so prison personnel (guards) do it. While I am sure most prison guards are honorable, educated, dedicated people, they are not doctors and they have no business administering drugs in ANY situation, but especially one as important as Lethal Injection to End Life.
2. The drugs used come in several components. First there is Sodium Thiopental, which puts the condemned into a deep sleep. Then he or she is injected with Pancuronium bromide which induces muscle paralysis, within 1 minute of injection, by blocking the chemical impulses which make our muscles move. Respiratory failure (smothering to death) can follows in as little as 5 minutes, but they don't wait that long. The condemned is finally given an injection of Potassium chloride, which keeps the heart from beating.

Where the controversy comes in, is if an improper amount of Sodium Thiopental is used. It can been proven too small a dosage in non-lethal injection recipients causes the outward appearance of coma, but the patient is actually completely awake, aware AND ABLE TO FEEL EVERYTHING THEY DID TO THEM at all times during (GAG) surgery and other procedures, procedures I can only think of as Hellish in the agony endured by the patients who suffered through this, only to be "awakened" at the end of the operation to inform the staff of what happened.

The other drugs used in lethal injections would, if given to someone NOT under the correct dosage of Sodium Thiopental beforehand, cause muscular seizures and mind numbing agony. This, to me, is the most compelling reason to suspend lethal Injections: WE JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH YET.

Answer 9

The act of killing someone can be considered cruel by itself, regardless of whether or not its painful. Also, there is evidence that it causes a great deal of pain.

But your right, none of this is a good reason to get rid of the death penalty.

There are, however, many great reasons to do away with this archaic form of punishment. Even ignoring the fact that it is completely inhumane and hypocritical for a moment - it costs a hell of a lot more money to execute someone than it does to keep him in prison for life, its unfairly administered to the poor and minorities, and lots of the time, innocent people get caught up in the mix. There are no rational arguments for the death penalty.

Answer 10

When one of the criminals that have been given it and says it was very painful and seemed cruel to him, then I will agree. Until such complaint has been brought forth, then silence is consent and therefore it must not be cruel.

So far no complaints from people that have been given actual injections.