Condemned can claim injection too painful

[Nathan Brazil]

http://washtimes.com/national/20060612-014009-4188r.htm
The Supreme Court opened the door today to new constitutional challenges to lethal injection, the method used by most states and the federal government to execute death row inmates.

In a unanimous decision, the court allowed those condemned to die to make last-minute claims that the chemicals used are too painful -- and therefore amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment.

That's pretty funny, basing this on the Eighth Amendment, when executions were performed in all states when the Amendment was ratified, and the usual method was hanging or firing squad.

Let's see now.

We can't hang'em, because occasionally the head pops off.

We can't shoot 'em, because they'd want a last cigarette and smoking not allowed in prisons any more. Bad for their health, after all.

We can't electrocute'em, because too many people have seen "The Green Mile" and remember the scene where Delacroix was executed with the dry sponge.

We can't drown 'em, because it violates varioius water purity laws.

Crucificion has unpleasant religious connotations today, mostly because I think the tree huggers would weep over the use of a tree to a good purpose.

Starvation is out, it upsets Ethiopians, I believe.

Suffocation is out, for some reason.

And now we're going to see the end of the nice quiet needle.

The guillotine is quick and painless, you know. Put the guy in a nice padded suit, say like those big fake football outfits the contestants on MXC occasionally wear, lay'em down gently with their necks across the nice comfy padded collar, then drop the blade. If they want, the condemned's attorneys can question the head immediately after the execution to see if it felt any pain.

What's really going to happen? Let the condemned go through the pageantry of last rites and last meal, then gas him in his sleep with a narcotic, then drag him to the execution chamber unconscious and do him in any old way at all.

This country is really getting pathetic when it can't execute a Westerfield because the baby rapist and murderer might say "ouch" when a simple needle is put into his arm.

[bobbylien]

Why can't we just put them to sleep first? Then they wouldnt feel a thing.
Crucifiction has unpleasant religious connotations today, mostly because I think the tree huggers would weep over the use of a tree to a good purpose Yeah.. that must be it. :rolleyes: Maybe its because people don't want to drive by a prison and see someone hanging from a cross. Crucifiction was more of a torture death, we can't have torture, even though some of these people REALLY deserve it.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Nathan, 2 constitutional issues come up with the death penalty. One, is it applied fairly and, two, is it cruel and unusual. Those issues are what caused it to be ruled unconstitutional and alterations to the procedure (plus a change of judges) made them constitutional again.

We had the bill of rights ratified at a time when slavery was the norm and women couldn't vote. That doesn't mean such things were constitutional even according to the bill of rights (not considering later amendments where it was more specific).

I don't understand why, if my pet is dying, I can go to the vet, have them anesthetized, and then give an injection, but we can't do that for executions of humans. My vet can painlessly kill an rat or a dog, but we refuse to do the same for humans.

The guillotine is quick and painless, you know.

There has been much debate over whether that is true. People may survive for a short period (5 or 10 seconds) after they were decapitated, and this is supported by movements of the eyes and mouth. Many cases involved controlled movement that did not appear to be simple twitches or unconscious reactions. Though it's highly debatable whether the person is conscious or not.

Any form of death that involved a conscious victim is going to be subject to charges that it is cruel and inhumane. We need to put the person under before they are executed, assuming we must continue with executions that is.

[Nathan Brazil]

Nathan, 2 constitutional issues come up with the death penalty. One, is it applied fairly and, two, is it cruel and unusual. Those issues are what caused it to be ruled unconstitutional and alterations to the procedure (plus a change of judges) made them constitutional again.

1) The article cited doesn't address "equality of application".

2) What moron thinks a needle in the arm is either "cruel" or "unusual"?


We had the bill of rights ratified at a time when slavery was the norm and women couldn't vote.

Does that invalidate the Bill of Rights in some fashion?


That doesn't mean such things were constitutional even according to the bill of rights (not considering later amendments where it was more specific).

Actually, both slavery and restricted suffrage were perfectly constitutional when the BoR was ratified. It's pretty hard to claim that slavery is "unconsitutional" when slavery is an accepted practice specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself, and the Constitution also specifically stated that the States shall each determine the qualifications for voters in their state.

I don't understand why, if my pet is dying, I can go to the vet, have them anesthetized, and then give an injection, but we can't do that for executions of humans. My vet can painlessly kill an rat or a dog, but we refuse to do the same for humans.

Because then there's the argument that the person being executed isn't mentally competent at the time of execution and hence the execution is in violation of yet even more judicial nonsense.

Personally, I'm not in favor of anesthetizing pets. Just take 'em out in the yard, put the shotgun to their head, and POW! No pain, no fuss. Works with people too, I understand.

The guillotine is quick and painless, you know.

There has been much debate over whether that is true. People may survive for a short period (5 or 10 seconds) after they were decapitated, and this is supported by movements of the eyes and mouth. Many cases involved controlled movement that did not appear to be simple twitches or unconscious reactions. Though it's highly debatable whether the person is conscious or not.

Any form of death that involved a conscious victim is going to be subject to charges that it is cruel and inhumane. We need to put the person under before they are executed, assuming we must continue with executions that is.


Why do we need to put a condemmed man "under" before we off him? He's being punished for a crime. It's not too much to expect that he be aware of the execution of that sentence, is it? There's no reason to feel sorry for them, after all. They earned the sentence, let them enjoy it to it's fullest.

It's the last thing they'll ever do in life.

[AlonzoMourning23]

It's pretty hard to claim that slavery is "unconsitutional" when slavery is an accepted practice specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself

Show me where.

Personally, I'm not in favor of anesthetizing pets. Just take 'em out in the yard, put the shotgun to their head, and POW! No pain, no fuss. Works with people too, I understand.


Well, humans are animals. But I find it odd that you oppose abortion yet you'd treat a dog, a being infinitely more intelligent and aware than a 2 month old embryo, in such a way.

1) The article cited doesn't address "equality of application".

2) What moron thinks a needle in the arm is either "cruel" or "unusual"?

I don't care what the article addressed, those where the issues the supreme court addressed when making their rulings. The constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment, unnecessary suffering clearly fits that.

[Nathan Brazil]

I don't care what the article addressed, those where the issues the supreme court addressed when making their rulings. The constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment, unnecessary suffering clearly fits that.


So the minor pain of a needle stick, an element absolutely necessary to the procedure at hand, is "unnecessary suffering"?Â*Â*That's a hillarious argument.Â*Â*I wonder if the Brits would have stopped the hanging of Nathan Hale if he'd told them he was allergic to hemp fibers?

The Constitution condones capital punishment.Â*Â*Ergo, minor discomforts in the application of that sentence cannot be construed as unconstitutional "unusual" suffering.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the people that wrote the Constitution didn't think capital punishment was appropriate in some circumstances, this Amendment would not include capital punishment as a possible punishment.

Amendment XIV - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Clearly, capital punishment is acceptable to the state that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.Â*Â*I'm pretty sure that the survivors of the Civil War would laugh at the babies crying about a needle in the arm, and then hack off the arm in exchange.Â*Â*Oh, they didn't have any wussy anasthetics then, either.

They'd say that if a man is big enough to murder a little girl, he's man enough to take a little bitty needle in the arm.

People can argue that the sentence of execution is unevenly applied.Â*Â*Not that I care, but they can argue it.

No one in their right mind can argue that the minor pain of a little needle stick is sufficient cause to prevent that sentence from being carried out.

What kind of girlyman country is this becoming, anyway?

[bobbylien]

They'd say that if a man is big enough to murder a little girl, he's man enough to take a little bitty needle in the arm.

No one in their right mind can argue that the minor pain of a little needle stick is sufficient cause to prevent that sentence from being carried out.

What kind of girlyman country is this becoming, anyway?

I'm sure thats what people said when they outlawed hanging.
This is probably just a last ditch attempt by a lawyer to stop his clients execution, but theres nothing wrong with looking into this. Its not about the pain of the needle, they argue that the chemicals cause pain before death. All of this could be solved by putting the killer to sleep first. I'm not sure why we havent started doing that.

[bobbylien]

The constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment, unnecessary suffering clearly fits that.

Exactly, but it says UNNECESSARY suffering. If there is no way around that suffering its not unnecessary. The constitution clearly allows capital punishment.

[AlonzoMourning23]

No one in their right mind can argue that the minor pain of a little needle stick is sufficient cause to prevent that sentence from being carried out.


The issue isn't the needle. That's obvious to any who pays any attention to the issue.

Exactly, but it says UNNECESSARY suffering. If there is no way around that suffering its not unnecessary. The constitution clearly allows capital punishment.

It allows capital punishment if it fits that standard. That's always been the issue. Capital punishment is not an absolute right of the government, it's only their right if it fits our understanding of the constitution.

Then there's the issue of whether the constitution should be taken in the context of our understanding of the concepts (for example, what does cruel and unusual mean today as opposed to what it meant in the 1700's), or whether we should attempt to mimic the founding fathers as closely as possible. I think the latter has disasterous results and I do not agree with it. For example, well into this century even ww1 veterans were denied citizenship because the supreme court decided that the founding fathers felt that only blacks and whites should be citizens. Look up the case of Bhagat Singh Thind for example.

[Nathan Brazil]

The issue isn't the needle. That's obvious to any who pays any attention to the issue.

The issue is the needle. The ruling is reported to say that if the needle hurts, the condemmed can cry and the executioner has to stop.

It allows capital punishment if it fits that standard. That's always been the issue. Capital punishment is not an absolute right of the government, it's only their right if it fits our understanding of the constitution.

Governments don't have rigths, they have powers. And yeah, duh! any form of execution is going to be somewhat less pleasant than a trip to the local gentleman's club.

Then there's the issue of whether the constitution should be taken in the context of our understanding of the concepts (for example, what does cruel and unusual mean today as opposed to what it meant in the 1700's), or whether we should attempt to mimic the founding fathers as closely as possible. I think the latter has disasterous results and I do not agree with it. For example, well into this century even ww1 veterans were denied citizenship because the supreme court decided that the founding fathers felt that only blacks and whites should be citizens. Look up the case of Bhagat Singh Thind for example.

Oh? In the context of today? A needle stick is nothing and shouldn't be used as an excuse to halt an execution. Ask Nick Berg if he'd rather his killers had used a needle and sedatives.

[Nathan Brazil]

It's pretty hard to claim that slavery is "unconsitutional" when slavery is an accepted practice specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself

Show me where.


Constitution of the United States:
Article 1 Section 2:
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)


Article 1, Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


Slaves count as 3/5 of a person in the original Constitution, and the federal government cannot regulate the importation of slaves until 1808.

[AlonzoMourning23]

"Bound to service for a term of years" describes indentured servants, not slaves. Now was the intention in reference to slaves, yes, but it was not explicitly stated.

[Old Corps Gunny]

If inoculation of infants, children and adults is not considered "cruel and unusual", but instead necessary for personal and public safety; it is imcomprehensible to understand how sticking a needle into a criminal sentenced to death could be considered "cruel and unusual". If, on the other hand, the particular toxic chemicals used to carry out the sentence are being challenged (and I believe this is the case), then I wonder how this determination is made. Has anyone actually asked the condemned what they were experiencing while they were dying?

[AlonzoMourning23]

If inoculation of infants, children and adults is not considered "cruel and unusual", but instead necessary for personal and public safety; it is imcomprehensible to understand how sticking a needle into a criminal sentenced to death could be considered "cruel and unusual".Â*Â*If, on the other hand, the particular toxic chemicals used to carry out the sentence are being challenged (and I believe this is the case), then I wonder how this determination is made.Â*Â*Has anyone actually asked the condemned what they were experiencing while they were dying?Â*Â*


The chemicals are believed by most doctors to be painful. They simply mask the main by essentially paralyzing the body. These chemicals are even banned for use by veterinarians in some states due to fears over pain.

There are alternative ways to execute someone where the risk of pain is less, there shouldn't have to be a debate over this. It's not this or nothing, there are better alternatives, and your veterinarian may very well use them.

[Nathan Brazil]

Have Barry Bonds smash their head in with a bat. That'll be painless enough.

Really, though, let's face it. The whole line of argument is absurd. A needle in the arm? Should we outlaw blood donations because of the intense agony those brave donors are forced to suffer? Perhaps we should stop giving cancer patients shots?

Clearly, a needle stick is neither cruel nor unusual, and the decision merely demonstrates not only the agenda driven goals of the court, but the lunacy of the far left in seriously arguing in support of the court on this one.

[bobbylien]

Really, though, let's face it. The whole line of argument is absurd. A needle in the arm? Should we outlaw blood donations because of the intense agony those brave donors are forced to suffer? Perhaps we should stop giving cancer patients shots?

Clearly, a needle stick is neither cruel nor unusual, and the decision merely demonstrates not only the agenda driven goals of the court, but the lunacy of the far left in seriously arguing in support of the court on this one.

You just don't get it. Its not the needle that is causing this debate. The argument is about the chemicals causing pain prior to death.

[Nathan Brazil]

You just don't get it. Its not the needle that is causing this debate. The argument is about the chemicals causing pain prior to death.

Read the article. It was about a whiny murderer complaining that it hurt when they tried to find his collapsed veins. As if that should matter.

Also, does anyone care if the poor widdle thing feels a little discomfort? After all, they used to HANG people when they ratified this over abused amendment.

There's absolutely no historical basis for preventing executions because of mild discomfort on the part of the condemmed. All that's happening is the bleeding heart liberal agenda eager to save all lives possible, no matter how evil, unless is the inconvenient yet innocent life of an unborn child. Then...the same people whining about the discomfort of the child kidnapper rapist murderer are all for sucking the baby through a straw.

I bet that's painful, not to mention both cruel and unusual.

[Old Corps Gunny]

Every time I hear or read about how "cruel and unusual" the death penalty is, I wonder how mental anguish and physical agony the victim suffered. I honestly cannot muster up much sympathy for the criminal. McVeigh was mentioned in an earlier post; considering how much pain and anguish was inflicted on the survivors, relatives and friends of the victims, and the community at large, I think he got off easy.

[Mayberry]

or whether we should attempt to mimic the founding fathers as closely as possible. Absolutely. That was the whole idea. Life, Liberty, and Property/ Pursuit of Happiness. You know, all those things that are nearly gone. As far as the death penalty hurting, hell, I'd inject the bastards with sulfuric acid and watch them melt. Better yet, give them to the victim's family to do with what they wish. If the family doesn't want them, see step 1.

[BoogyMan]

Lethal injection execution is done in the following order of chemical administrations:

Anesthetic - Sodium thiopental, which has the trademark name Pentothal, puts the inmate into a deep sleep. This drug is a barbiturate that induces general anesthesia when administered intravenously. It can reach effective clinical concentrations in the brain within 30 seconds, according to an Amnesty International report. For surgical operations, patients are given a dose of 100 to 150 milligrams over a period of 10 to 15 seconds. For executions, as many as 5 grams (5,000 mg) of Pentothal may be administered. This in itself is a lethal dose. It's believed by some that after this anesthetic is delivered, the inmate doesn't feel anything.

Saline solution flushes the intravenous line.

Paralyzing agent - Pancuronium bromide, also known as Pavulon, is a muscle relaxant that is given in a dose that stops breathing by paralyzing the diaphragm and lungs. Conventionally, this drug takes effect in one to three minutes after being injected. In many states, this drug is given in doses of up to 100 milligrams, a much higher dose than is used in surgical operations -- usually 40 to 100 micrograms per one kilogram of body weight. Other chemicals that can be used as a paralyzing agent include tubocurarine chloride and succinylcholine chloride.

Saline solution flushes the intravenous line.

Toxic agent (not used by all states) - Potassium chloride is given at a lethal dose in order to interrupt the electrical signaling essential to heart functions. This induces cardiac arrest.

[Athena]

This thread shares something in common with the thread about killing rapist.Â*Â*My intention here is debate.

Jesus said, let the person who has not sinned throw the first stone.Â*Â*Personally, I know when I am stressed, I behave in ways I don't like.Â*Â*I would like to remain calm and logical at all times, but this just isn't how we are made.Â*Â*Can you ask yourself, do you ever do anything you would rather not do?Â*Â* Get nervious and say things you wouldn't say if you weren't stressed?Â*Â*Compassion begins with recognizing our own human nature.Â*Â*We do not have the perfect control over ourselves we would like to have, unless perhaps you have practice yoga for 30 years or a buddhist monk.Â*Â*

Some killers deeply regret they killed someone, and others feel completely justified and would do it again.Â*Â*During times of war, those engaged in war can be shocked by how easily they shift from not being able to kill, to enjoying killing the enemy.Â*Â*After the war, some easily return to society and others do not.Â*Â*

If we are killers or are compassionate people, has much to do with how we are raised.Â*Â*The Hopi raise their children to be passive and have a peaceful culture.Â*Â*The Apachi, mother would slap her baby and say, "this will make you a strong warrior", and it did.Â*Â*Within our society we have a variety of parenting styles, and we have child abuse.Â*Â*How we come out has a lot to do with how we were parented and our early social experiences.Â*Â*

Again, I ask, how is different to execute someone for having a crippled body, or for having a crippled mind?Â*Â*