The media have replayed the same story about unreliable convictions to the point that we all now believe it. It behooves us to ask: exactly who are these “innocents” that have been pulled back from the brink of execution? If you are talking about exonerations in rape cases through DNA testing, these tragedies undoubtedly exist. But capital murder cases? Most often, they are reversed for some sort of trial error, negotiated on retrial to a life sentence, or simply not retried for various reasons. These defendants simply cannot be reported as “innocents” no matter how many times the media says so.

Far too many innocent people have been wrenched back from the brink of death for my taste, making the manner of death almost irrelevent. Equal justice means we don’t murder innocent people, by any means.

just a thought…

I’d argue cruel. Given the irrevocability of the sentence, I think it only makes sense to treat an execution as carefully and respectfully as possible, for whatever process is chosen to carry it out (this would mean different standards for different methods of execution).

“Is there really such a thing as killing/dying with dignity?”

I don’t think so, but for such an irrevocable sentence its gravity demands we grant what dignity we can.

“It’s ironic that we want to kill people with the most painless manner, and yet so many terminally ill patients suffer more natural pain while they die.”

I wouldn’t argue for “most painless” manner; I’d argue for an efficient (quick, not prolonged) process not prone to error which, by granting what dignity may be granted (be it by eliminating pain or by strictly respecting ceremonial process, as in execution by firing squad), respects execution as the ultimate irrevocable punishment. With respect the word “most”, I doubt methods are well-ordered, and there is no “best” method.

The critical difference between terminal illness and execution is of course that humans directly and deliberately choose the method of execution in the latter case, but terminally ill patients usually have no choice about the nature or quantity of pain they endure.

This issue is completely bogus anyway. The alleged problem only occurs if the pancuronium bromide and the potassium chloride do their jobs, but the thiopental does not. So, how does one needle work for the pancuronium bromide and the potassium chloride, but that same needle does not work for the thiopental, which preceded the other two?

Well, at least they didn’t harass the Kentucky lawyer about the Lancet study . . . .

“One thing I would have liked to see (I would assume it had been raised earlier) was the question of whether the absence of the second drug would itself constitute cruel and unusual punishment by making a spectacle of the execution. “Dignity” was mentioned numerous times, but I don’t understand why a constitutional argument for its necessity wasn’t made explicit. I think this would have been perhaps more compelling than the need to protect the viewers’ sensibilities.”

I wonder about that myself, how do you relate cruel and unusual to dignity? Which part does it relate to , cruel or unusual or both? Is there really such a thing as killing/dying with dignity?

If there is so, is allowing someone to die with pain a crime? It’s ironic that we want to kill people with the most painless manner, and yet so many terminally ill patients suffer more natural pain while they die.

One thing I would have liked to see (I would assume it had been raised earlier) was the question of whether the absence of the second drug would itself constitute cruel and unusual punishment by making a spectacle of the execution. “Dignity” was mentioned numerous times, but I don’t understand why a constitutional argument for its necessity wasn’t made explicit. I think this would have been perhaps more compelling than the need to protect the viewers’ sensibilities.

Also, comment 14 is right on. If you plan to read it, I suggest doing so while listening to the oral recording — several times entire sentences or phrases were missing, a few words were entirely mistranscribed (“information” for “euthanasia” in an organization name!), to name just a few that I remember.

A final note: the most glaring of the errors in the transcript was the consistent misspelling of “barbiturate” as “barbituate”. I could appreciate mishearing or distraction resulting in errors, but this demonstrated a stunning lack of familiarity with the key terms used in the arguments.

Amazing? It is true, and quite obviously so. The Eighth Amendment was still pending ratification when the same Congress that proposed it authorized death by hanging, which nobody thought was a guaranteed painless death.

A “cruel” method of execution was originally understood to be one such as drawing and quartering. It is true enough that there are punishments that were accepted then that would be considered cruel today, such as whipping. But to say that the execution of the death penalty must be completely painless is absurd.