• 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 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The crime determines his sentence. After that, our laws and our humanity essentially forbid us from conducting torture or vengeance, regardless of what came before.

How is lethal injection torture or vengeance? Just because he might feel burning for a few seconds?

I don't think anyone is advocating that we draw and quarter this guy or that we tie him to the back of a truck and drag him until he dies. But if you're going to start arguing that any amount of pain is "cruel and unusual" punishment, then you might as well just stop arguing in this thread because we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

For me personally, I've gone back and forth on the death penalty multiple times and probably still haven't decided if I fully agree or not. I don't like the idea of taxpayers having to support a monster the rest of his/her life, though.
 
you people are sick. stand on your high horse bashing the guy for his terrible act, and then preach the same inhumanity. or maybe worse, because you think it's just

A bear walks into a bar and asks the bartender for a beer. The bartender says, "Sorry, we don't give beer to bears in bars."

The bear replies, "If you don't give me a beer, I'll eat that lady over there."

The bartender says, "Go ahead."

So the bear eats the lady and asks for a beer. The bartender says, "Sorry, we don't give beer to bears on drugs."

"What do mean," asks the bear. "I'm not on drugs."

"Yes, you are, that was the bar bitch you ate."
 
I don't understand why it's so hard to find drugs to kill people in a painless fashion.

Just about everyone has gone under for surgery before, and you don't feel a thing unless they don't give you enough anesthesia.

So just calculate how much you would give a normal person, multiply it by 10, and then kill them in any fashion you want.

That's basically exactly what happens.

They consciously feel a few things at first, and as others have stated in the thread, sometimes the IV sedation chemical burns as it courses through veins. That burning is mostly just the chemical reacting with each neuron it comes into contact with, and then the totality of it all ends up causing a suppression of actual feeling.

Just like anyone going under the knife, receiving a high dose of what they use causes the exact same thing. You could cut them up and they wouldn't feel a thing.

What happens AFTER they are already sedated is both the overdose on the sedative, and the other chemical, both proceed to course throughout the body and cause paralysis. It's rarely so perfect as going from conscious, to unconscious, to entirely paralyzed; it takes a little time for the paralysis agent and overall chemical OD to cause true brain death.

Guess what happens to your body, even when completely stone-cold unconscious, when the neurons in your CNS are still capable of acting on electrical potentials but otherwise cannot effectively communicate with the.. er, what is it, the medulla and basal ganglia? (the former being for autonomous motor controls, the latter voluntary motor control)

That would be the following: the neurons fire repeatedly and the connected skeletal muscles (and smooth cardiac muscle) constantly spasm, sometimes so violently they actually cause tears in the connective tissues/ligaments and rip free from the skeleton.

Guess what that looks like to an outside observer? It looks brutal.

Guess what the patient feels? Absolutely nothing.


Clarification: I admit I'm not sure if these chemicals cause the nerves to fire repeatedly, causing the muscles to spasm, or if they interact directly with the skeletal muscle tissue. The general means to the end should be the same: there's an interruption to certain metabolic processes, and/or ultimately a disruption at the cellular level, *I believe* mostly at the osmotic/electrolyte level which causes a sort of locked-on cellular response... in this case being the fully engaged taut position, which when uninterrupted causes spasm.

A true medical professional who understands these processes would tear apart what I just said, so it shouldn't be cited for important purposes. But it's going to be close enough for general understanding. 😉

That, and the end point is still the same: the "victim", er... the scumbag who got his/herself into that position in the first place, doesn't feel a damn thing once it progresses to the lethal point.

They only feel whatever might be felt during sedation.
 
How is lethal injection torture or vengeance? Just because he might feel burning for a few seconds?

I don't think anyone is advocating that we draw and quarter this guy or that we tie him to the back of a truck and drag him until he dies. But if you're going to start arguing that any amount of pain is "cruel and unusual" punishment, then you might as well just stop arguing in this thread because we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that seems to be how the courts have defined our execution protocols. The chair was deemed tolerable for some time, until it wasn't. Hanging was the de-facto for some time, until it wasn't. likewise, the guillotine (never accepted in the states, afaik).

In fact, those last two are probably the most humane--lopping off one's head is essentially painless and near-instant. But the courts, and the public, have come to define practices that "look icky" as cruel and unusual. I wouldn't even put any of that in the same league as quartering or disemboweling, obviously, which we can all probably agree is what the founders had in mind.

Now that those are unacceptable to us, the next avenue of redress is, simply, pain. Make no mistake, though, that the concept of Death Row will be the next target. It has already been said that this is probably the worst aspect of receiving the DP.

For me personally, I've gone back and forth on the death penalty multiple times and probably still haven't decided if I fully agree or not. I don't like the idea of taxpayers having to support a monster the rest of his/her life, though.

well, if you want to think about it economically, then taxpayers are much better off paying for life than paying for death.
 
exactly. The OP is a pretty uh "vile" example of this.

Guy sounds like an evil piece of shit. Yet, preying on readers' emotions to influence what is essentially an unrelated factor in the discussion is quite petty.

Generally speaking, one does not get prosecuted under the death penality unless the act is particularly vile. Somebody who gets convicted of negligent homicide or similar will likely not get death-rather a lengthy term in jail.

Besides, how else would a lawyer get a jury of the defendents peers to convict him with out playing on emotions a bit? As dougp says, seeing crime scene photos and other evidence can strike up emotions within a person without the need for other outside influence.

I also agree with SlitheryDee. Regardless of this man's actions, he has been assigned death. Why do we feel the need to make it humane for this man? It is it our best interest to make it quick. Forget painless, forget humane. The tax payers should not pay for some extra measures so this man gets a nice comfy dirt nap.
 
I also agree with SlitheryDee. Regardless of this man's actions, he has been assigned death. Why do we feel the need to make it humane for this man? It is it our best interest to make it quick. Forget painless, forget humane. The tax payers should not pay for some extra measures so this man gets a nice comfy dirt nap.

I don't disagree with that, but again, the answer is very simple: that pesky constitution.

It really is quite clear on the issue.

And no--it can't possibly be quick. the death penalty industry is notoriously flawed and, as it stands now, should fully be abolished as it allows the execution of innocents.

I'm not talking about the manner in which we execute, simply in that it exists. I'm also not excusing the evil in this world, nor addressing the proper means of justice. Simply--the system does not work. But that is a different discussion.
 
I don't disagree with that, but again, the answer is very simple: that pesky constitution.

It really is quite clear on the issue.

It really isn't clear IMO. "Cruel and unusual punishment" can be interpreted many ways. Maybe sticking the guy in a cell and making him watch and listen to Justin Bieber videos all day for the rest of his life could be construed as cruel and unusual punishment? Wait, nevermind, that IS cruel and unusual punishment. :biggrin:
 
He should've thought about all of that before he raped and murdered a teenager. I promise you a lethal injection with a few seconds of burning is far more humane and painless than the deaths most of us will have and many of us will have to look it in the eye and will see it coming too.

He wasn't capable of stopping himself from committing the crime. He is not a normal human being. And again, his crime does not allow us to be more/less humane. Our job is to make sure he does not commit the same crime again. This is where people get confused, they think it is our job to punish.

This person has no value to society at all. None. Why keep him alive and have the taxpayer pay?

see my argument above. it's costing a ton of money either way. but arguing for death because of cost is not helping you make your point...

You're also wrong. His crime is exactly why he got this penalty. He didn't shoplift a pack of gum. He ended someone's life after abducting and raping her.

idk about you, but I hold myself to higher standards than murderers and criminals. I can think clearly about difficult and emotional issues. his mistake doesn't justify us to do whatever we want
 
There is no inconsistency there. What I'm saying is that we've crossed a line beyond which we're only massaging our own ego by playing the "humane execution" game. We've committed to doing the worst thing you can do to a person. Not in anger or passion, but through a cold and calculated process that has been agreed upon by the majority of society. There is no warmth or compassion in that decision, but there is no rage or desire for vengeance either. Nothing in the process is meant to serve the criminal in question. It is not for him. It is the way we rid ourselves of him. That's why I say it should be done in the way we decide is best, because that is the way that accepts the naked truth of what we are doing.

Honestly, if we forced ourselves to look at it that way every time, I'm not sure capital punishment would survive it. It's the way we rationalize it that allows us to keep doing it. Right now we tell ourselves that even though we killed a person, it's ok because we did it in a certain way. We think that just because we pay attention to the little inhumanities, that somehow forgives a portion of the larger ones. It isn't so. We need to get that kind of thought out of the discourse entirely.

I'm really confused here. It's not massaging egos. I am strongly against the death penalty. But if it's going to happen, I'd like it to be as humane as possible. Killing a person isn't the worst thing you can do. Making it painful is worse, and unnecessary. The way society treats its lowest members has meaning, and you are saying you, or we, don't give a shit
 
I don't understand why it's so hard to find drugs to kill people in a painless fashion.

Just about everyone has gone under for surgery before, and you don't feel a thing unless they don't give you enough anesthesia.

So just calculate how much you would give a normal person, multiply it by 10, and then kill them in any fashion you want.

i don't understand why we care about how much pain they feel while we kill them.
in fact, I think we should be finding the most painful ways to kill these motherfuckers.
 
I hold myself to a higher standard than depraved killers. And I expect my government to also.

This isn't medieval Europe where we throw people on the rack or burn them alive, or Pakistan where we cut off extremities or stone them. We're supposed to be better.

how does killing them humanely make us better? i argue it makes us weaker.
 
He wasn't capable of stopping himself from committing the crime. He is not a normal human being. And again, his crime does not allow us to be more/less humane. Our job is to make sure he does not commit the same crime again. This is where people get confused, they think it is our job to punish.

see my argument above. it's costing a ton of money either way. but arguing for death because of cost is not helping you make your point...

idk about you, but I hold myself to higher standards than murderers and criminals. I can think clearly about difficult and emotional issues. his mistake doesn't justify us to do whatever we want

If he is not capable of stopping himself from committing that kind of crime, then I'd say he doesn't qualify as human at all. At any rate, this discussion is going nowhere so we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree with that, but again, the answer is very simple: that pesky constitution.

It really is quite clear on the issue.

And no--it can't possibly be quick. the death penalty industry is notoriously flawed and, as it stands now, should fully be abolished as it allows the execution of innocents.

I'm not talking about the manner in which we execute, simply in that it exists. I'm also not excusing the evil in this world, nor addressing the proper means of justice. Simply--the system does not work. But that is a different discussion.

It's flawed because we as humans are flawed. Since we are the ones who make the laws and who enforce them, it is only natural innocents get accused of crimes they don't commit.

As time goes on however, this should be happening less and less with the constant surviellance with cameras, etc and better and better crime scene analysis and forensic technique.

As mentioned above, it's been deemed legal for the state to end somebody's life if they are prosecuted and found guilty. As far as I'm concerned, finding a painless and humane way to end this person's life is just a feel good way to please the same type of people who feel all warm and fuzzy inside after they pass a magazine restriction law in certain states. They do "something" to address the issue, even tho it really doesn't solve any problems.

Instead they deal with this clusterf*ck dealing w lawsuits and beaurocratics when they could simply take a .22 bullet and probably just as 'painlessly' end his life.
 
He wasn't capable of stopping himself from committing the crime. He is not a normal human being. And again, his crime does not allow us to be more/less humane. Our job is to make sure he does not commit the same crime again. This is where people get confused, they think it is our job to punish.

idk about you, but I hold myself to higher standards than murderers and criminals. I can think clearly about difficult and emotional issues. his mistake doesn't justify us to do whatever we want

You don't get it, and you probably ignored my post above or have me on ignore completely.

I've posted about this before - at least, in Texas, there are two phases to a capital punishment trial. You have the guilt-innocence phase, and the punishment phase. During the guilt-innocence phase, you decide whether the guy is innocent or guilty - ONLY evidence from the crime is permitted. During the trial I was on, the guy came across as a druggie who killed while tripping.

During the punishment phase is where shit got real. You learn about their past, their home life and how they've been in jail since their arrest - which is typically 3-4 years after their arrest. During this time, what happens to them, is COMPLETELY up to them. They can comply with officers, they can be on good behavior, etc.

Or they can be total fuck-ups. They can lie and manipulate the system to receive meds, they can cover their walls in feces and require physical detainment teams, they can throw urine on guards and they can hurt other criminals.

During the punishment phase, you're asked if you feel the defendant will continue to be a threat to society - this includes in prison. You think guards should have to deal with having feces and urine thrown on them? How is that humane conditions for someone to work in? Do you think they should be in solitary the whole time, but because of manipulation of the system, still requires interaction with guards/medical staff to abuse them, is humane?

These people are worthless, and contribute nothing - they're not human.

They made their choice - the state isn't killing them, and the jury isn't killing them. They're killing themselves.
 
maybe it's not a perfect comparison, but should be slaughter animals whatever way we want? we've decided to kill them, does it matter how we do it?

As long as the specific way we choose to do it serves some rational purpose, then no. For instance, I would be against beating cows to death because there can be no reason for it other than fulfilling some sick urge on the part of the person doing the slaughtering. Other things, like force feeding ducks to make foie gras seems cruel, but it does serve some specific purpose for which the ducks have been raised. In that case my only suggestion would be that you know exactly what you're eating before you try it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, slayer must have me on ignore. Surprised no one else has commented on my post, either. I forgot, can't bring substance and experience to an argument here.
 
It is considered "humane" to shoot an animal in the head with a bolt gun at a slaughterhouse, correct?

No dude, we should be first giving them a fancy last meal of whatever they wish, then give them some sleepy time meds, then inject them with x_x juice to finish them off.

This will be both time and budget effective.
 
an animal doesn't know what a bolt gun is, nor do they know they are about to die

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
 
Yeah, slayer must have me on ignore. Surprised no one else has commented on my post, either. I forgot, can't bring substance and experience to an argument here.

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
 
Back
Top