OT: Lethal Injection May Not Be Painless

[sabotai]

I know a lot of people who support the death penalty really don't care how the people are put to death. Cover them with honey and let a bear claw and bite at them until they die. But, I also know a lot of people are for the death penalty, but as long as it is "humane". This is more for them...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn7269

For the Clicking Impared:

Execution by lethal injection may not be the painless procedure most Americans assume, say researchers from Florida and Virginia.

They examined post-mortem blood levels of anaesthetic and believe that prisoners may have been capable of feeling pain in almost 90% of cases and may have actually been conscious when they were put to death in over 40% of cases.

Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated in the US, 788 people have been killed by lethal injection. The procedure typically involves the injection of three substances: first, sodium thiopental to induce anaesthesia, followed by pancuronium bromide to relax muscles, and finally potassium chloride to stop the heart.

But doctors and nurses are prohibited by healthcare professionals’ ethical guidelines from participating in or assisting with executions, and the technicians involved have no specific training in administering anaesthetics.

“My impression is that lethal injection as practiced in the US now is no more humane than the gas chamber or electrocution, which have both been deemed inhumane,” says Leonidas Koniaris, a surgeon in Miami and one of the authors on the paper. He is not, he told New Scientist, against the death penalty per se.

But Kyle Janek, a Texas senator and anaesthesiologist, and a vocal advocate of the death penalty, insists that levels of anaesthetic are more than adequate. He says that an inmate will typically receive up to 3 grams - about 10 times the amount given before surgery. “I can attest with all medical certainty that anyone receiving that massive dose will be under anaesthesia,” he said in a recent editorial.

Extremely anxious

The authors of the new study argue that it is simplistic to assume that 2 to 3 grams of sodium thiopental will assure loss of sensation, especially when the people administering it are unskilled and the execution could last up to 10 minutes. They also point out that people on death row are extremely anxious and their bodies are flooded with adrenaline - so would be expected to need more of the drug to render them unconscious.

Without adequate anaesthesia, the authors say, the person being executed would experience asphyxiation, a severe burning sensation, massive muscle cramping and cardiac arrest - which would constitute the “cruel and unusual” punishment expressly forbidden by the US constitution’s Eighth Amendment.

Koniaris's team collected post-mortem data on blood levels of sodium thiopental in 49 executed inmates. Even where the same execution protocol and the same blood sampling procedure was used, they found that levels varied dramatically - from 8.2 to 370 milligrams per litre. In other inmates, mere trace levels were recorded.

“Perverted medical practice”

If these post-mortem concentrations reflect levels during execution, the authors say, 43 of the 49 inmates studied were probably sentient, and 21 may have been “fully aware”. Because a muscle relaxant was used to paralyse them, however, inmates would have been unable to indicate any pain.

Ironically, US veterinarians are advised not to use neuromuscular blocking agents while euthanising animals precisely so they can recognise when the anaesthesia is not working.

People in the US assume that lethal injection is highly medicalised, and therefore humane, says Koniaris. “But when you look at it critically, it’s anything but medical,” he says. “It’s a perverted medical practice.”

He says the people carrying it out are unskilled, the procedure is not monitored - the executioners step behind a curtain when delivering the lethal drugs - and there is no follow-up to ensure that everything worked as intended.

Journal reference: The Lancet (vol 365, p 1412)

[Lathum]

Interesting read but who realy cares. I think these "people" should suffer for the things they have done, how have they earned the right to be treated humanley?

[ISiddiqui]

Perhaps by being members of the human race?

[Deattribution]

I always found it humorous they're worried about whether someone feels pain or not while killing them.

Think it makes all that much of a difference to a person when they know they are being executed?

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

I always found it humorous they're worried about whether someone feels pain or not while killing them.

Think it makes all that much of a difference to a person when they know they are being executed?

Yes....I'll take the chair.....but please I want it to tickle.......

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Perhaps by being members of the human race?

I would argue that someone who has deliberately maimed, killed or raped another human is somewhat less than human themselves, personally.

[dubb93]

Still the only problem I have with it is the amount of people that get set free from death row each year. Even one is too much, if there was a 100% certain way to say that a person actually did what they are accused of doing[and don't say a trial] I would be all for the bear and honey method.

As for caring if it is humane or not after they have already decided to kill them, I find that laughable.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I would argue that someone who has deliberately maimed, killed or raped another human is somewhat less than human themselves, personally.

So is humanity something that comes about through a certain action(s)? Most people consider humanity an innate component of homo sapiens. What makes someone a human for you?

[judicial clerk]

Treating them humanely is more about you the executioner than about the peron about to die

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So is humanity something that comes about through a certain action(s)? Most people consider humanity an innate component of homo sapiens. What makes someone a human for you?

Homo sapiens is nothing more than a scientific classification for how we fit into the world around us. It's simply a description of what we are as a species. You wouldn't use canis familiaris as a catch-all for what constitutes the canine species.

Beyond that, you can't really define a concept with itself. "I have humanity because I am human," or vice versa. As humans, there are a couple of basic ideas that generally hold favor within our several societies. Get along. Don't inflict harm on one another (for what goes around come around).

And yet, there are individuals within society who do just that: inflict harm. They do it not for resources, as nations might, or for food, as animals might, but for the sheer, visceral pleasure of inflicting pain upon another individual or watching them die. Is that properly human?

If it is, why do we, as humans, experience such outrage at those acts? If to rape or to kill is an act consistent with humanity, then why not permit it at will?

On first typing this, I went further with this, but quickly realized that the rest of what I had to say was not only needlessly inflammatory, but detracts from the debate at hand.

So, long story short, I believe that while we as humans are flawed, that there are certain standards of decency that maintain our humanity. There are certain lines across which we dare not tread, at the risk of losing that humanity.

I dare say an individual accused of attempting or committing genocide would be viewed not as human, but as a monster. Why, then, is it less heinous on a personal level than on a mass level?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

Treating them humanely is more about you the executioner than about the peron about to die

I can understand that, and even empathize with it. I do not suggest that we should go out of our way to inflict as much pain upon the condemned as the condemned did upon their victims.

I suggest merely that we treat predatory homo sapiens with far more concern for their well-being than we do other predatory forms of life, simply because of an accident of genetics.

I suggest that if we have a duty to be humane when putting the condemned to death, then such a duty is universal across all circumstances. After all, what separates execution from other cessation of human and animal life?

[Crim]

I don't care. Murderers, rapists... let em die. However is most convenient for society to dispose of these blights, while being most... palatable to the bleeding hearts, is fine with me. I feel no remorse for their suffering, only regret that their disposal will not fully atone for the evil that they have wrought.

Crim

[Fritz]

My impression is that lethal injection as practiced in the US now is no more humane than the gas chamber or electrocution, which have both been deemed inhumane


---
Electrocution is used by 10 states, Gas Chamber by 5, Hanging by 3 and Firing Squad by 2 (well, 3).

---

As far as medical people not being involved, seems that the states hands are tied on this one.

[Greyroofoo]

All I know is that the govt will spend more money on a death row inmate than the normal John Q Citizen

[ISiddiqui]

If it is, why do we, as humans, experience such outrage at those acts?

If we experience so much outrage at those acts then how come they have occured at incredible levels throughout history. Just about every civilization has engaged in an aggressive war. I think the 'outrage' is more a product of Enlightenment thinking and not something inherant in humans.

I dare say an individual accused of attempting or committing genocide would be viewed not as human, but as a monster.

And he can't be viewed as both? The most dangerous thing we can do is to say people like Hitler, Stalin were not human, thus dismissing their actions as something catastrophically rare... when the reality is that that genocidal drive is inherantly human, if you look throughout history.

The lesson to be learned is REAL HUMANS did these things... not monsters. Therefore vigilance is key in a liberal enlightened society.

[SFL Cat]

Let's starve the bastards to death. Down here in Florida, we hear that when a person starves to death, the experience can lead one to a state of euphoria.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If we experience so much outrage at those acts then how come they have occured at incredible levels throughout history. Just about every civilization has engaged in an aggressive war. I think the 'outrage' is more a product of Enlightenment thinking and not something inherant in humans.


And he can't be viewed as both? The most dangerous thing we can do is to say people like Hitler, Stalin were not human, thus dismissing their actions as something catastrophically rare... when the reality is that that genocidal drive is inherantly human, if you look throughout history.

The lesson to be learned is REAL HUMANS did these things... not monsters. Therefore vigilance is key in a liberal enlightened society.

Fair points. Let me counter: what is (or should be) our goal with such individuals: punishment and deterrence, reformation, or simply protecting society from their further ravages?

If the goal is punishment, does life in a 6x12 cage sufficiently punish those with a murderous, rapacious, or genocidal urge, or are we simply transferring our own fears upon *them*? By the same token, if the death penalty is imposed as punishment, does making sure those sentenced don't feel anything do anything in the way of punishment? Does it deter others with similar urges from indulging those urges?

If the goal is reformation, what's the point of locking them up for life? If we aren't going to give them a chance to prove that they aren't as incorrigible as they seemed, then why bother trying to bring them around? By locking up mass murderers, rapists, etc, to life sentences "without the possibility of parole," aren't we, in effect, admitting that they represent a minimal value to society while causing a resource drain? Imprisonment as a deterrence seems to affect only those who might otherwise say "Well, hell, if they can do it, why can't I?" It does nothing to influence those with a propensity to indulge their darker urges in the first place.

Then, of course, there's the protection angle. It works, sure, but from that point of view, wouldn't we be better off finding ways to identify such people before they become threats to society? If we do so, does the fact that we're separating based upon traits, genetic or otherwise, somehow lessen our own humanity. Does that constrain us to eternal reactiveness?

[Glengoyne]

So

[Joe]

if lethal injection is painful too, we should just stone the bastards to death.

[Noop]

Not all people on Deathrow are guilty...just ask GWB.

[illinifan999]

I like the idea of attaching their balls to a floor, give them a rusty knife, start the room on fire, and let them decide if they want to die or live a live without balls. If they cut em off, put em back in prison. Or the honey and bear idea. Or throw acid on their face. Or shoot em. Or hang em.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

I like the idea of attaching their balls to a floor, give them a rusty knife, start the room on fire, and let them decide if they want to die or live a live without balls. If they cut em off, put em back in prison. Or the honey and bear idea. Or throw acid on their face. Or shoot em. Or hang em.

What does this say about you as a human being?

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

What does this say about you as a human being?

I'm horrible, and would like to see people who do horrible things actually punished.

[Raiders Army]

I'm with illinifan. Make it MORE painful. Screw the people out there that think it's inhumane. Make it so painful, death is a blessing. At least it would become a deterrent.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I know a lot of people who support the death penalty really don't care how the people are put to death. Cover them with honey and let a bear claw and bite at them until they die. But, I also know a lot of people are for the death penalty, but as long as it is "humane". This is more for them...

Nice try, but a hopeless cause. The pro-torture lobby is pretty strong in these parts.

[Sharpieman]

Kind of off topic, but are we the only "civilized" nation that still has the death penalty? Or am I completely wrong?

[Fritz]

from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

Death Penalty Permitted in Exceptional Cases (Exceptional crimes include some committed under military law or crimes committed in wartime.)
Albania (2000)
Argentina (1984)
Armenia (2003)
Bolivia (1997)
Brazil (1979)
Chile (2001)
Cook Islands (n.a.)
El Salvador (1983)
Fiji (1979)
Greece (1993)
Israel (1954)
Latvia (1999)
Mexico (n.a.)
Peru (1979)
Turkey (2004)

Death Penalty Permitted
Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People's Republic)
Comoros
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Morocco
Myanmar
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Philippines
Qatar
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

[WSUCougar]

Guillotine?

[A-Husker-4-Life]

I'm glad its not completely painless...

[Sharpieman]

Sorry I didn't mean civilized, I'm an idiot, I meant first world country.

[st.cronin]

The tide of history seems to be against the death penalty. As Scalia pointed out, when the Constitution was drafted, the death penalty pretty much was the definition of felony punishment. I predict in my lifetime there will be no death penalty in any democratic state.

[ThunderingHERD]

The poet Steven P. Morrissey once asked : "Is evil just something you are, or something you do?" It is my opinion that those who have not come to terms with the fact that it is the latter tend to be criminally reactionary in their shame.

/double entendre intended

[Wolfpack]

After reading the details of Jessica Lundie's death this morning, I'm not sure I want the death penalty ever to be completely illegal. For the guy who did it, I want it to be particularly painful after several years of prison rapes.

[Aardvark]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

I always found it humorous they're worried about whether someone feels pain or not while killing them.

Think it makes all that much of a difference to a person when they know they are being executed?

It's not about whether the person being executed feels the pain, it is about the dehumanizing effect of inflicting pain on the executioners. (I'm actually advancing the same argument that Lewis Carroll used against the practice of vivesection.) For the good of society, executions (if they must be practiced, note that Texas has, in the past couple of years, executed at least one, and possibly multiple men who were most likely innocent. In at least two cases, exhonorating evidence existed but was not allowed before the review board.) should be conducted professionaly.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

[Aardvark]

Originally Posted by Fritz

from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

Death Penalty Permitted in Exceptional Cases (Exceptional crimes include some committed under military law or crimes committed in wartime.)

Israel (1954)

Which has had exactly one judicial execution -- Adolf Eichmann (The only crime in Israel which warrents the death penalty is genocide)

Back in biblical times, they were a little more common. The Sanhedrin (the equivelent of the Supreme Court) was considered a "charnal house" for applying the death penalty about once every seven years.

[chinaski]

Death penalty would be completely acceptable in my book, if we could always prove 100% without fail someone is guilty. If that fool proof day ever came, im all for extreme amounts of torture.

[judicial clerk]

[/quote]I suggest that if we have a duty to be humane when putting the condemned to death, then such a duty is universal across all circumstances. After all, what separates execution from other cessation of human and animal life

I think that the inclination to act humanely should apply when cessation of any life occurs. When hunting, for example, the hunter should act in a way to make death more "quick and painless" than allowing an animal doomed to death to suffer.

Guillotine?[quote]

I think this might be a good way to perform executions. As some of you may know the goal of the guy who invented the guillotine (I think he was a doctor named guillotine) was to make executions more "quick and painless" and therefore more humane. Chopping off people's heads might even increase the "general deterrant" effect of the death penalty.

I suppose this goes against our societal sensibility not to mutilate bodies.

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

I think this might be a good way to perform executions. As some of you may know the goal of the guy who invented the guillotine (I think he was a doctor named guillotine) was to make executions more "quick and painless" and therefore more humane. Chopping off people's heads might even increase the "general deterrant" effect of the death penalty.

I suppose this goes against our societal sensibility not to mutilate bodies.

as long as the guillotine executions are public.

[Glengoyne]

If Lethal Injection is too painful, and really how many complaints have there been? I'm thinking one round in the base of the skull would be the best answer. Quick, efficient, but a bit more messy than we'd probably like, but honestly for the vast majority of these people, this is more consideration than they gave their victims.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Death penalty would be completely acceptable in my book, if we could always prove 100% without fail someone is guilty. If that fool proof day ever came, im all for extreme amounts of torture.

Don't you think that with the increased use of DNA in murder and rape cases this day will come sooner rather than later? Or hasn't it already come for some people? When someone's DNA is found on a murdered victim and they are covered in the victim's blood - isn't that fool proof?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

The poet Steven P. Morrissey once asked : "Is evil just something you are, or something you do?" It is my opinion that those who have not come to terms with the fact that it is the latter tend to be criminally reactionary in their shame.

That is a great quote...

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Don't you think that with the increased use of DNA in murder and rape cases this day will come sooner rather than later? Or hasn't it already come for some people? When someone's DNA is found on a murdered victim and they are covered in the victim's blood - isn't that fool proof?

I believe its coming, probably not that soon since the backlog is so high. I hope a lot more is done to help work on the DNA testing backlog across the country. I think in cases where DNA proof of a crime is involved, that should be sufficient to warrant the death penalty.

[Aardvark]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I believe its coming, probably not that soon since the backlog is so high. I hope a lot more is done to help work on the DNA testing backlog across the country. I think in cases where DNA proof of a crime is involved, that should be sufficient to warrant the death penalty.

As long, of course, as it turns out that the chain of evidence from crime scene to lab is sufficiently good. Remember a couple of years ago when there was a scandal about how the lab doing the NFLs drug tests got samples mixed up and contaminated? There have been some fairly substantiated rumors that some of the labs handling DNA evidence in Texas have been similarly incompetent. So far it seems to have resulted more in bungled prosecutions, but it's only a matter of time before someone sticks the wrong label on a vial, or mixes up some readouts, and with Texas streamlined court system an error might not be discovered until it is too late.

[Archer219]

Originally Posted by sabotai

But, I also know a lot of people are for the death penalty, but as long as it is "humane".

I've never really understood this point of view. So, it's okay to kill people who did horrible things, just as long as they don't suffer before they die? I mean, who gives a rats ass. It's not like they're sticking around long after the "suffering" for it to diminish their quality of life.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I believe its coming, probably not that soon since the backlog is so high. I hope a lot more is done to help work on the DNA testing backlog across the country. I think in cases where DNA proof of a crime is involved, that should be sufficient to warrant the death penalty.

It is never such a good a idea to wed yourself too strong to one idea.

[Raiders Army]

For those who oppose the death penalty:

Indiana executes convicted rapist, murderer
High court denies request for stay; state’s 2nd execution of 2005
The Associated Press

Updated: 5:36 a.m. ET April 21, 2005MICHIGAN CITY, Ind. - A man who spent nearly two decades on death row for raping and killing a teenager was executed early Thursday.

Bill Benefiel Jr., 48, died by injection at 12:35 a.m. at the Indiana State Prison. He was convicted of holding 18-year-old Delores Wells of Terre Haute captive for 12 days before killing her on Feb. 17, 1987.

Benefiel also held Alicia Elmore of Terre Haute captive for four months in the same house and raped her more than 60 times. She survived and testified against him.

“Let’s get this over with,” he said. “Let’s do it.”

Benefiel spent a quiet day Wednesday watching television, and his only visitor was his attorney, prison officials said.

Wells’ mother, Marge Hagan, was at the prison for the execution but didn’t witness it.

“He was there for her last breath and I want to be there for his,” Hagan said. “I want to be as close as I can and know for sure this monster is gone and he will never, ever again hurt anyone else ever again.”

High court denies request for stay
The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a request for a stay of execution filed by Benefiel’s attorneys, who argued that the trial judge improperly limited mitigating factors the jury could consider during the sentencing phase.

Wednesday night, about 25 protesters gathered outside the prison for a candlelight vigil and march.

“Our hope is to bring awareness to the atrocities of executions,” said the Rev. Tom Mischler of St. Mary of the Lake in Gary.

Gov. Mitch Daniels reviewed a clemency request from Benefiel’s attorneys and the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, spokeswoman Jane Jankowski said.

Benefiel’s lawyers sought the review, even though Benefiel signed a waiver March 7 stipulating he did not want to ask for clemency. He had been on death row since November 1988.

Benefiel was the second person executed by Indiana this year and the 13th in the state since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977.

He held a girl captive for 12 days before killing her and held another girl for four months and raped her 60 times. He deserves torture and death. In case you didn't read it, the mother of the killed girl said:

“He was there for her last breath and I want to be there for his,” Hagan said. “I want to be as close as I can and know for sure this monster is gone and he will never, ever again hurt anyone else ever again.”

I don't think she has any problem with the dehumanizing effects of the process.

Link

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

For those who oppose the death penalty:



He held a girl captive for 12 days before killing her and held another girl for four months and raped her 60 times. He deserves torture and death.

Because that will somehow undo his crimes? Or just provide a bestial, vindictive thrill? Granted, if someone raped and killed my (hypothetical) daughter, I'd probably want to torture him--I also would not be the most rational person to ask for an opinion on the matter.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Aardvark

As long, of course, as it turns out that the chain of evidence from crime scene to lab is sufficiently good. Remember a couple of years ago when there was a scandal about how the lab doing the NFLs drug tests got samples mixed up and contaminated? There have been some fairly substantiated rumors that some of the labs handling DNA evidence in Texas have been similarly incompetent. So far it seems to have resulted more in bungled prosecutions, but it's only a matter of time before someone sticks the wrong label on a vial, or mixes up some readouts, and with Texas streamlined court system an error might not be discovered until it is too late.

DNA is not he be all and end all. At the very least a necessary step would be providing all defendants on trial for capital crimes with real legal representation (i.e. an attorney who won't fall asleep at the trial and who has spent more than 5 minutes preparing the case). This, of course, would cost money is therefore not likely to ever happen, leaving the majority of capital convictions, to my mind, seriously tainted.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

Because that will somehow undo his crimes? Or just provide a bestial, vindictive thrill? Granted, if someone raped and killed my (hypothetical) daughter, I'd probably want to torture him--I also would not be the most rational person to ask for an opinion on the matter.

It won't undo his crimes, but it will certainly prevent him from doing those things to other people.

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

It won't undo his crimes, but it will certainly prevent him from doing those things to other people.

As would a life in prison, I imagine.