New death penalty cocktail. Seems effective.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zodiark1593

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2012
2,230
4
81
The continued existence of the death penalty in the USA shows that even progressive societies like to hold onto anachronistic barbarism from time to time.

I wonder the limit--if there is one--to the joy some of you would take into e physical suffering of another. Perhaps a new drug cocktail can come out that makes the death take an hour, or maybe two. Or maybe a drug that puts a person into pure agony for six months long. Would that sate you? Would you not be entertained? Does their pain atone for their crime?
I really don't care how fast, slow, painful or not the execution is. The point being to rid society of yet another evil person that walks the Earth whom would otherwise drain resources (in prison) or would slay more people. Is it not a waste of our resources when we give a serial killer a life sentence instead of what should be a quick, decisive execution.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
I think death penalty opponents view this as an opportunity to highlight the fundamental barbarity of the death penalty. Victories are measured by executions prevented, not executions that just show how right we were.

And just fuck all to the barbarity of the crime committed and how it impacts families and friends. You reap what you sow. It's actually more cruel to lock someone in a cage for the remainder of their lives...and a lot more expensive.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,074
55,607
136
And just fuck all to the barbarity of the crime committed and how it impacts families and friends. You reap what you sow. It's actually more cruel to lock someone in a cage for the remainder of their lives...and a lot more expensive.

It is actually not more expensive in many cases.

As for the appeal to their victims, that is simply the argument that two wrongs make a right.

Finally, as to what you consider to be more cruel, that is a pretty specious value judgment. What is it based on, what conditions of confinement are you assuming, and why are they necessary?
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
It is actually not more expensive in many cases.

As for the appeal to their victims, that is simply the argument that two wrongs make a right.

Finally, as to what you consider to be more cruel, that is a pretty specious value judgment. What is it based on, what conditions of confinement are you assuming, and why are they necessary?

Look, a bullet or a noose doesn't cost as much as a lifetime in prison...or they shouldn't. The costs are driven up by a ridiculous judicial stagnation process that occurs. States like California are famous for the time it takes to get through the entire appeal process. As far as I'm concerned, expedite the appeal process and those execution methods are fast and cheap. A convicted criminal shouldn't have a choice of the method of execution as many states allow. Most of these prisoners are spending the large majority of there "lives" in a tiny cell devoid of the sun, sky and human interaction....that's cruel. Why is this necessary? Because they are criminals and earned their derogatory treatment at the tax payers expense. The two wrongs doesn't make a right is an opinion as is mine. I consider the death penalty justice and a means of holding people accountable for their actions. There are some horrifically evil people living amongst us; if they decide to act on their desires or passions then they choose to pay the ultimate price. My sister in law was killed many many years ago and the smartest thing her killer boyfriend did was kill himself. My thoughts regarding the death penalty changed when I saw and experienced first hand what that selfish killing did to my wife and family at the time.
 
Last edited:

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
While their pain doesn't undo their crime, it's sometimes as close as we can come to a valid punishment. I would HAPPILY give the 6 month version to at least a couple people who would otherwise be taking up space in our prisons. It doesn't even have to be a drug...let me in there and I'll personally work 40 hours a week administering constant torture to them.
I rather doubt your bluster would transform into real action given the chance. It would take a very "special" kind of person to be able to administer torture for 40 hours/week for 6 months straight.
As opposed to making the death take decades?
Taking a person and locking them in a 6x9 windowless cage for the rest of their natural life, with no hope of escape, ever, is a fate worse than death.
It is not civilized that we do this to people, nor should we fool ourselves that we are alleviating their suffering.
We do this for ourselves. We do it because we're afraid we might have been wrong.
It isn't worse to hold them in a cell, because most people on death row would prefer that to a speedy death. I could probably get behind giving them an option. You'd see most people would not take the injection.
I really don't care how fast, slow, painful or not the execution is. The point being to rid society of yet another evil person that walks the Earth whom would otherwise drain resources (in prison) or would slay more people. Is it not a waste of our resources when we give a serial killer a life sentence instead of what should be a quick, decisive execution.
As we both know, it costs more to execute than life sentence, due to the stringent legal requirements.
And just fuck all to the barbarity of the crime committed and how it impacts families and friends. You reap what you sow. It's actually more cruel to lock someone in a cage for the remainder of their lives...and a lot more expensive.
I don't agree, but if it is more cruel, why would you be opposed to that? Or are you feigning that being pro-death penalty is merciful? I wonder how that jives with people like princeofwands who professes to endorse 6 months straight of pre-death torture.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
From your very own constitution I present, the 8th amendment:

"Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

You do realize that the founders of this country, including the ones that wrote this amendment, didn't have a problem with hanging and shooting.

We had the drugs to make it a humane punishment but zealots made them unavailable. If he suffered it was because of them.

This.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,074
55,607
136
Look, a bullet or a noose doesn't cost as much as a lifetime in prison...or they shouldn't. The costs are driven up by a ridiculous judicial stagnation process that occurs. States like California are famous for the time it takes to get through the entire appeal process. As far as I'm concerned, expedite the appeal process and those execution methods are fast and cheap. A convicted criminal shouldn't have a choice of the method of execution as many states allow.

You realize that one of the big reasons the appeals process and all is so lengthy is that we keep finding out that people sentenced to death weren't guilty after all, right?

Most of these prisoners are spending the large majority of there "lives" in a tiny cell devoid of the sun, sky and human interaction....that's cruel. Why is this necessary? Because they are criminals and earned their derogatory treatment at the tax payers expense.

I would say that's not necessary either. Regardless, it certainly isn't an excuse of state sanctioned murder.

The two wrongs doesn't make a right is an opinion as is mine. I consider the death penalty justice and a means of holding people accountable for their actions. There are some horrifically evil people living amongst us; if they decide to act on their desires or passions then they choose to pay the ultimate price. My sister in law was killed many many years ago and the smartest thing her killer boyfriend did was kill himself. My thoughts regarding the death penalty changed when I saw and experienced first hand what that selfish killing did to my wife and family at the time.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that you had to go through that, it sounds awful. I don't think that personal feelings after a tragedy are a good basis for public policy though.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Me too. What's your point?
The original claim was 'we shouldn't care if the convicted man suffers during execution because he didn't care when his victim suffered.' I was pointing out that whether he cared or not is irrelevant, because we're better than rapists and murderers. Part of the reason we're better is that we don't take pleasure in the suffering and killing of others. We should care if they suffer because they're still human beings, and even if we decide as a society that we have to execute someone, that doesn't mean we have to make them suffer.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
But helps the economy. Have to pay someone to hose the blood off the walls or tie the nooses.

By that logic, we should have more of these high paid doctors with their uber expensive drug cocktails.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
I think my views on the death penalty have changed over the years. This is entirely due to people being exonerated by DNA evidence. I completely understand the desire for vengeance/eye-for-an-eye when a heinous crime is committed, but I think the bar for the death penalty has to be EXTREMELY high. We need to ensure that there is no chance, at all, of an innocent person being executed. IANAL, so I'm not entirely sure how you set this bar. Require multiple direct eye witness accounts of the crime? Require matching DNA evidence?
 

BUnit1701

Senior member
May 1, 2013
853
1
0
diatribe (ˈdaɪəˌtraɪb) n1. a bitter or violent criticism or attack; denunciation

[C16: from Latin diatriba learned debate, from Greek diatribē discourse, pastime, from diatribein to while away, from dia- + tribein to rub]


What "diatribe" would you be referring to?

I simply posted a set of links that showed that there were plenty of reasons other than the efforts of some activists as to why there were supply problems.

I notice that you didn't address the other links to the pharmaceutical companies and why they stopped supplies on their own accord.

Why would that be?

Umm, because they belong to the group previously labeled 'zealots'?
 

BUnit1701

Senior member
May 1, 2013
853
1
0
I think my views on the death penalty have changed over the years. This is entirely due to people being exonerated by DNA evidence. I completely understand the desire for vengeance/eye-for-an-eye when a heinous crime is committed, but I think the bar for the death penalty has to be EXTREMELY high. We need to ensure that there is no chance, at all, of an innocent person being executed. IANAL, so I'm not entirely sure how you set this bar. Require multiple direct eye witness accounts of the crime? Require matching DNA evidence?

Accept the fact that the courts are run by humans and therefore wont be perfect? What is the percentage of falsely convicted felons who would be subject to the death penalty? I'm betting it is infinitesimal.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,948
3,939
136
We do this for ourselves. We do it because we're afraid we might have been wrong.

Exactly. There are many cases of people sentenced to life having sentences overturned. It's much easier to open a door and let someone out than make them not dead any more.

Putting these people in solitary confinement for decades is a separate issue. I'm of the opinion that this should only be done when someone is an imminent danger to themselves or others and for as short a time as possible.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
The original claim was 'we shouldn't care if the convicted man suffers during execution because he didn't care when his victim suffered.' I was pointing out that whether he cared or not is irrelevant, because we're better than rapists and murderers. Part of the reason we're better is that we don't take pleasure in the suffering and killing of others. We should care if they suffer because they're still human beings, and even if we decide as a society that we have to execute someone, that doesn't mean we have to make them suffer.

No, I'm better because I don't kill/rape innocent people. I dont' give a #$# if murderers and rapists suffer.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,948
3,939
136
Accept the fact that the courts are run by humans and therefore wont be perfect? What is the percentage of falsely convicted felons who would be subject to the death penalty? I'm betting it is infinitesimal.

Is infinitesimal >= 1? And if that 1 was you, would you be willing to die to preserve the system?
 

BUnit1701

Senior member
May 1, 2013
853
1
0
Is infinitesimal >= 1? And if that 1 was you, would you be willing to die to preserve the system?

It would suck, and I would wish the court system was more accurate, but expending massive amounts of money to house the actually guilty so we dont accidentally get an innocent is a waste of resources. Instead of spending all that money to house felons, how about we roll it into research for better forensic tools and methods to reduce the false positive rate?
 

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,182
23
81
Dilaudid and versed OD will kill you, but it will take a while. Agonal breaths are not unexpected, in fact his reaction is exactly what I would expect. Thats why you need to add a muscle relaxant, so no one can see the victim move. Versed to cause amnesia, Rocuronium to stop movement and breathing. Wait 15 minutes, painless and done.

Really, really, really wonder why a muscle relaxant was not administered. The guy would've been doped up and wouldn't even twitch as his O2 levels dropped from respiratory depression.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
Accept the fact that the courts are run by humans and therefore wont be perfect? What is the percentage of falsely convicted felons who would be subject to the death penalty? I'm betting it is infinitesimal.

I'm of the mindset that even 1 innocent person executed is too many.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
I rather doubt your bluster would transform into real action given the chance. It would take a very "special" kind of person to be able to administer torture for 40 hours/week for 6 months straight.

Surprisingly it doesn't. It just takes a reason. I've posted mine before, but here's a repost of it:

Most of us have seen it...on tv or in a movie. A young kid on the verge of puberty riding along on his bike when suddenly the clouds part and a ray of sunshine falls upon the form of a girl emerging from her new home. The boy, who has never noticed such things before, is suddenly awestruck by her beauty and stares - utterly transfixed...right up until he plows into a tree in her front yard and goes flying head over ass into the ground. The thing is, it wasn't a movie or a tv show. Not for me. I have the dubious honor of having actually ridden into a tree the day I first noticed man's bane - the girl.

It was 1983, and I was 11 years old. Her name was Charla Wheat and she had just moved into the house two doors down from me. The house had been recently vacated by the family of my friend Tina, and I was still somewhat upset about the move. I think that's why I looked over in the first place...just chasing some old ghosts. But whatever made me look over, my life would never be the same again.

I wasn't popular (or attractive) as a kid, so I think that slowed my social development. Before Charla I had never really had the need to meet new people. But as I lay there in the grass, bleeding from various points of sudden flora impact, the only thing I could ponder was how I was going to get up the nerve to talk to this girl. Charla took care of that for me and suddenly I was looking up into the face of angel, asking me if I was ok. I'll save you the suspense, she was never interested in me that way; but we did become very good friends. Six years later Charla moved away so her father could take over a new ministry in Texas. You know, I never have forgiven that house for sending away all the women in my life.

In 1991, just a year and-a-half after moving, Charla was stabbed to death. There was a knock on the door of her apartment...she opened it and found Billy Ray Nelson, a neighbor. Nelson gained entrance to Wheat's apartment by asking if he could use her phone. Once inside, he cut the telephone cord to prevent her from calling for help and then proceeded to stab her. He then found Wheat's roommate, Carol Maynard, who was five months pregnant at the time, and forced her to get out of bed and enter the living room, where Wheat was on her knees bleeding from her stab wounds. Nelson told the women to remove their clothing and threatened to kill them if they refused. He then forced the women to perform sexual acts on him and each other. Thereafter, he stabbed Maynard in the neck and proceeded to strike Wheat. Nelson left briefly but Wheat began screaming and he returned. While Maynard pretended to be dead, Nelson struck and stabbed Wheat until she died. He then left the women's apartment.

That was the day my compassion for criminals died too.

I found out about it after the man had been arrested. That's quite probably the only reason he's still alive. He has no idea how lucky he is, because I would make absolutely certain that he was a very long time in dying. What pisses me off about it most is that his appeals case has become central to the capital punishment debate, especially with regards to Texas law. So instead of remembering Charla when his name is brought up, people will remember him and how he is to praise and thank for his part in getting people 'justice'. Last I checked his death sentence had been commuted by a ruling of the court. I don't know...maybe some day some slick lawyer will find a way to get him released on a bleeding heart technicality... hahahahhaha, bleeding heart...the irony. Well, should that day come I will rejoice. On that day Billy Ray Nelson will begin the long journey into death.

I still have the picture Charla gave me in my wallet. It's right on top of her obituary from our local paper. I miss you Charla.

Any time I didn't want to go to work (as a torturer), or felt like allowing it to end, all I'd have to do is reread that and it would inspire me to continue my work.
 
Last edited:

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
It would suck, and I would wish the court system was more accurate, but expending massive amounts of money to house the actually guilty so we dont accidentally get an innocent is a waste of resources. Instead of spending all that money to house felons, how about we roll it into research for better forensic tools and methods to reduce the false positive rate?
Because part of the problem is we rate police on their success rate of charging criminals and finding them guilty. DA has political aspirations? He wants that high conviction rate. Police charge innocent person? That's going to hurt his conviction rate.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,904
31,433
146
We had the drugs to make it a humane punishment but zealots made them unavailable. If he suffered it was because of them.

not exactly. Those "zealots" are now countries outside of the US that are now the only manufacturers of pentobarbitol, or derivatives.

It was either Merk, or Roche? that was the sole manufacturer in the country, and they stopped making it a year ago, iirc.

The problem is that any source outside of the US is highly restricted, because these countries do not condone the death penalty, and will not allow export because they know it will be used for putting people to death.