• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Deathrow Inmate Files Lawsuit Over "Inhumane" Execution Drug

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IndyColtsFan said:
You keep adding additional qualifications to your argument. Now, if I am understanding you correctly, even the knowledge that you're going to be executed constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment in your books.

L O L
Click to expand...

I posed a simple hypothetical scenario.

It is considered "humane" to shoot an animal in the head with a bolt gun at a slaughterhouse, correct?
Click to expand...

If I simply responded yes, you would transfer that answer to executing humans, which would be misleading and unfair. So I clarified...do you disagree that humans and other animals have different levels of consciousness and emotion? Pain is a bit more universal...I'm not adding qualifications, you tried to give a slick answer but failed
 
IndyColtsFan said:
Ok, ignore my previous post. How SHOULD we execute people?
Click to expand...

painlessly. and because I feel you breathing down my neck with "just shoot them in the head", do it "gently." Society is very particular about certain things, and shooting someone in the head isn't going to fly. stop trying to trip me up because it's not going to work.
 
slayer202 said:
I should have you on ignore, but I don't (and I have a LOT of people on ignore).

But I ignored your post because we are talking about how we are executing, not whether we should do it in the first place. I did read what you posted and none of it changes my belief on the matter of capital punishment. Obviously I don't want prison guards or other prisoners in harms way, but that doesn't mean death is a better option for those we can't control. It's not an easy thing to deal with, but death shouldn't be an option imo
Click to expand...

So, what is a viable counter to the death penalty that prevents the prisoner from harming others?

You can't get to the DP or method of execution without understanding why that person is there in the first place. You need to understand the process, which is why I provided my experience first hand.
 
slayer202 said:
painlessly. and because I feel you breathing down my neck with "just shoot them in the head", do it "gently." Society is very particular about certain things, and shooting someone in the head isn't going to fly. stop trying to trip me up because it's not going to work.
Click to expand...

A needle prick has some degree of pain. There goes that execution method!
 
slayer202 said:
ok to be more specific, sedate, and then end life

but I guess i'm just a dirty hippie
Click to expand...

So, we need to increase the cost of killing someone already convicted of a capital offense by eliminating even the smallest bit of discomfort? Should we also put them up in a 5 star hotel, rather than prison before hand as well? Prison sure sounds rather discomforting and cruel.

And, your notion that a bullet to the head not "gentle" enough, you are very out of touch with history and public opinion. I find it hard to believe people willing the send death threats over the most mundane things are going to be upset someone who rapes and murders a teenage gets shot in the head.
 
dougp said:
So, what is a viable counter to the death penalty that prevents the prisoner from harming others?

You can't get to the DP or method of execution without understanding why that person is there in the first place. You need to understand the process, which is why I provided my experience first hand.
Click to expand...

except I believe those people do not have the capacity to control themselves. we are lucky to be "sane"

IndyColtsFan said:
A needle prick has some degree of pain. There goes that execution method!
Click to expand...

a needle prick is not a cruel level of pain. keep trying
 
z1ggy said:
That's how it is done. But it's expensive relative to a nice brand new shiny .22 that will get the same thing accomplished.
Click to expand...

I would suggest the use a larger caliber, or some "reloadable" device (pneumatic bolt, for example). We wouldn't want someone to survive execution.
 
smackababy said:
So, we need to increase the cost of killing someone already convicted of a capital offense by eliminating even the smallest bit of discomfort? Should we also put them up in a 5 star hotel, rather than prison before hand as well? Prison sure sounds rather discomforting and cruel.

And, your notion that a bullet to the head not "gentle" enough, you are very out of touch with history and public opinion. I find it hard to believe people willing the send death threats over the most mundane things are going to be upset someone who rapes and murders a teenage gets shot in the head.
Click to expand...

a lot of US prisons do have conditions that are too cruel. I'll ignore the rest of these words
 
slayer202 said:
a needle prick is not a cruel level of pain. keep trying
Click to expand...

I think you need to keep trying. Lethal injection has been upheld as constitutional by the USSC, meaning it is not judged as "cruel and unusual" punishment by the people who actually determine the constitutionality of such practices. If these are new chemicals and is a new challenge, fine -- let's just switch back to the approved chemical cocktail and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
slayer202 said:
ok to be more specific, sedate, and then end life

but I guess i'm just a dirty hippie
Click to expand...
That's exactly how it used to be done in Oklahoma. A three drug process that first sedated, second immobilized and third stopped the heart. But anti death penalty zealots decided that they would make one of those drugs unavailable, the sedation drug. So now some states have had to improvise. It's all on the shoulders of the zealots. They knee-jerked without thinking and now we have what we have.

And there will be a bunch of these suits. Guess who gets to pay for them?
 
An eye for an eye, yes?

Cruelty to punish cruelty. Suffering as punishment for suffering. If the state can do it, why can't I? Can we evolve out of this cycle?
 
IndyColtsFan said:
I think you need to keep trying. Lethal injection has been upheld as constitutional by the USSC, meaning it is not judged as "cruel and unusual" punishment. If these are new chemicals and is a new challenge, fine -- let's just switch back to the approved chemical cocktail and be done with it.
Click to expand...

That's the problem, we can't. See my post above.
 
slayer202 said:
painlessly. and because I feel you breathing down my neck with "just shoot them in the head", do it "gently." Society is very particular about certain things, and shooting someone in the head isn't going to fly. stop trying to trip me up because it's not going to work.
Click to expand...

All you want is to make the event more palatable to society. You say you want an end to the death penalty, yet you suggest methods that would ensure that society can stomach it's continuation. Since it can't make a difference to the person being executed, all you're doing is making it suit your own sensibilities. Killing someone isn't nice. Any efforts toward making it appear that way are wasted and run counter to your stated desire.

All I'm ever arguing for is treating it as what it is, no more and no less.
 
Last edited:
IndyColtsFan said:
I think you need to keep trying. Lethal injection has been upheld as constitutional by the USSC, meaning it is not judged as "cruel and unusual" punishment by the people who actually determine the constitutionality of such practices. If these are new chemicals and is a new challenge, fine -- let's just switch back to the approved chemical cocktail and be done with it.
Click to expand...

I don't care what the USSC says. Are they infallible? They make the rules, that's all

SlitheryDee said:
All you want is to make the event more palatable to society. You say you want an end to the death penalty, yet you suggest methods that would ensure that society can stomach it's continuation. Since it can't make a difference to the person being executed, all you're doing is making it suit your own sensibilities. Killing someone isn't nice. Any efforts toward making it appear that way are wasted and run counter to your stated desire.
Click to expand...

you are completely wrong on all accounts

boomerang said:
That's exactly how it used to be done in Oklahoma. A three drug process that first sedated, second immobilized and third stopped the heart. But anti death penalty zealots decided that they would make one of those drugs unavailable, the sedation drug. So now some states have had to improvise. It's all on the shoulders of the zealots. They knee-jerked without thinking and now we have what we have.

And there will be a bunch of these suits. Guess who gets to pay for them?
Click to expand...

I applaud the european companies that no longer supply the drugs. It should delay executions, but instead the douches in the douche states push on without regard for the people being put to death
 
slayer202 said:
painlessly. and because I feel you breathing down my neck with "just shoot them in the head", do it "gently." Society is very particular about certain things, and shooting someone in the head isn't going to fly. stop trying to trip me up because it's not going to work.
Click to expand...

So... just like we do it now, by lethal injection.

It looks brutal, but goddammit y'all need to start understanding how these chemicals work. They don't feel a damn thing. The body experiencing unconscious spasms (which includes the diaphragm, which when tensed, forces the lungs to draw in air - diaphragm spasms produce a "gasping" appearance) DOES NOT EQUATE to feeling pain.

That's what the sedation is for.

What more do you want? They have introduced the most complex approach to a problem that has better solutions, exactly because of demands from people like you. We could perfectly and surely cause death through any number of means, but they look so barbaric in comparison to receiving a shot in a sterile hospital room. Problem is, now the ignorant people with no understanding of science see the spasms and suddenly think it's barbaric and excruciating for the individual. Once they are sedated, they absolutely cannot feel it. The sedation dose is usually close enough to kill them on its own accord, it's not going to be so perfectly close as to just barely knock them out without introducing safety risks like in medical procedures. During medical procedures, they measure very carefully to control how long they are out, to ensure they remain unconscious for the duration, and pose as minimal risk of possible of negative side effects. For lethal injection, they do not have those worries. There is zero chance they can actually feel it, so long as they use proper sedation.

The subject can simply remain "alive" for a little longer than desired because the spasms may still allow oxygenated blood to reach the brain, and glucose is possibly still able to be delivered at the same time. You provide continued oxygen and sugar to the brain, you prevent true death. However, it's not really enough sustained circulation to truly support life throughout the body, and it can be just enough circulation to support continued electrical activity in the brain and the rest of the CNS.
I feel quite certain in guessing that, if they had some magical ability to instantly stop the constant spasms introduced by the chemicals (and that was all they did), the body would immediately fall still and quickly proceed to brain death. I'm fairly certain they could technically reach clinical death prior to brain death, but clinical death requires the cessation of circulation and due to the chemicals and the resulting spasms, the heart can pump, highly irregularly, until the very moment of brain death.

Generally, in almost every case of death outside of these kinds of chemicals, clinical death precedes brain death. The brain can survive without oxygen for a little while - cut off its glucose supply and have it burn up its reserves already within the brain tissue, and it'll die even with an oxygen supply. Circulation is still the critical activity either way.
That's why people can and have lived even after reaching clinical death.
 
slayer202 said:
I applaud the european companies that no longer supply the drugs. It should delay executions, but instead the douches in the douche states push on without regard for the people being put to death
Click to expand...
Look, I can't stop you from being a pillow biter and I know I can't get you to understand how the law works because others have tried to explain it to you already in this thread. The conclusions you have drawn are not logical but make no mistake about it, they are your conclusions. They are based in hope. People that think like yourself have created this problem. Then, you wail and moan about it. If you feel the sky is falling, blame yourself. The people that are suffering are suffering because of you. It didn't have to be this way.



No homophobic slurs allowed.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:
slayer202 said:
you are completely wrong on all accounts
Click to expand...

You said that the death penalty should be carried out "gently" while implying that a bullet to the brain is unacceptable for societal reasons. What is the difference between the two from the perspective of the person being executed? It is arguably true that the bullet to the brain causes death before any pain is registered. It has also been demonstrated that even sedation can cause some pain, but for the sake of the argument let's call them equal from the perspective of the person being executed. In each case he feels no pain and simply dies.

This means that any difference between them from a moral perspective stems from how society views the two acts, and has nothing to do with the experience of the person in question. Do you really want to choose the method that feels less repellent to you in that case? Don't you want the brutality of the act to be on full display so that people will come around to your side of the issue out of pure disgust? If your only objection amounts to "But it's loud, sudden, and icky so we shouldn't do it that way", then you are not thinking things through.
 
boomerang said:
Look, I can't stop you from being a pillow biter and I know I can't get you to understand how the law works because others have tried to explain it to you already in this thread. The conclusions you have drawn are not logical but make no mistake about it, they are your conclusions. They are based in hope. People that think like yourself have created this problem. Then, you wail and moan about it. If you feel the sky is falling, blame yourself. The people that are suffering are suffering because of you. It didn't have to be this way.
Click to expand...

yes, because we HAVE to execute them. we have NO choice. It MUST happen on schedule. Yes

destrekor, I'm with you. But recently with these new chemicals I'm not sure that's true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top