SCotUS reviews legality of lethal injection [Archive]

SPINTECK

09-25-2007, 08:11 PM

This is an important issue because

1. Not only does "The State" (our country) deal in the murder of our citizens, but
2. how they do it is also of importance, if for nothing else to demonstrate that "The State" should NOT deal in death.

and the reason "they cost too much money to keep alive" is not only ridiculous, but shows you the level of thinking in society. The question really is what kind of society do you want to believe in and do you have faith enough in man made "systems" to trust no one innocent will loose thier life.

one article was about that gang member, Tookie, that kept looking up at the injection person asking, "why is it taking so long".

THere was also another incident but I can't remember any details.

LordOpie

09-25-2007, 08:18 PM

I agree with the reasons AGAINST the death penalty, but if it takes longer to kill them, well, they're dead, yeah? Does whatever emotional trauma they suffered really matter? It's not like they'll need therapy.

Let's put aside for a moment the issue of whether the death penalty is a good idea or not.

Changleen

09-25-2007, 08:18 PM

I believe if I remember rightly that it actually costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.

LordOpie

09-25-2007, 08:19 PM

I believe if I remember rightly that it actually costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.
True, but let's put that issue aside for a moment too?

Toshi

09-25-2007, 08:22 PM

I believe if I remember rightly that it actually costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.

source?

SPINTECK

09-25-2007, 08:24 PM

It all goes back to "no cruel and unusual punishment". What time limit is cruel and unusual?? The only real way to do it and not be cruel and unusual to say "we're not going to kill you and then BLAM".

So yeah, this game of death should have a sophisticated and well thought out protocol, again going to the core of the society that's implementing it.

Changleen

09-25-2007, 08:28 PM

source?

Got my Google on...

A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life." ( The costs of processing murder cases in North Carolina / Philip J. Cook, Donna B. Slawson ; with the assistance of Lori A. Gries. [Durham, NC] : Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, 1993.)

"The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level." (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).

"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )

"Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution."
(Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).

"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."
(The Geography of Execution... The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood 1997 p.6)

Figures from the General Accounting Office are close to these results. Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year.
(GOA report and testimony FY-97 GGD-97-15 )

ire

09-25-2007, 09:46 PM

For the cost of execution, one cost cutting measure comes to mind......a gun, nothing wrong with firing squad. Back on topic, here is a blip about the botched execution
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/florida-gov-bush-halts-executions.html

<edit> Here is a longer article
http://www.fadp.org/news/cnn-20061215/

I think this is the reason for the challenge (all states use the same cocktail/method)
Executions in Florida normally take no more than about 15 minutes, with the inmate rendered unconscious and motionless within three to five minutes. But Diaz appeared to be moving 24 minutes after the first injection, grimacing, blinking, licking his lips, blowing and appearing to mouth words.

valve bouncer

09-25-2007, 10:02 PM

"Humane execution" is an oxyN8.

LordOpie

09-25-2007, 10:09 PM

"Humane execution" is an oxyN8.

Exactly!

DaveW

09-26-2007, 02:10 AM

Exactly!

So we should go the roman circus route?
Ah what the hell, let us be entertained! :happydance:

binary visions

09-26-2007, 08:44 AM

I read a bit about lethal injection a while ago. IIRC, the chief problems are that the recipients are administered a paralysis drug prior to the lethal cocktail, and that the lethal drugs are administered by protocol, not according to the individual. That can cause the cocktail to not be strong enough to kill quickly, and instead the recipient is paralyzed and dies of suffocation while experiencing intense pain because of the other poisons.

Just Googled a little bit and that seems to all be accurate, so... The point is that this is akin to torture. Yeah, they're going to be dead anyway, but do you really think it should be okay to torture them first? I mean, if you want a cheap execution method, we could just stab them in the jugular and let them bleed out. Or, hell, just stop feeding them. They'll die eventually and there doesn't even have to be an "executioner."

Am I reading that wrong, or are you asking why anyone cares if they suffer since they're just going to be dead anyway?

LordOpie

09-26-2007, 08:49 AM

Am I reading that wrong, or are you asking why anyone cares if they suffer since they're just going to be dead anyway?

That, plus they did something to 'deserve' the death penalty, so a little torture for a serial killer on his way out is fine by me.

Let me state again, I am AGAINST the death penalty. But the method is irrelevant to me.

EDIT: damnit, the point is, this isn't a real challenge to a method but the punishment in general. Kinda like challenging the requirement of an ID to vote. Or challenging a method of abortion when it's really about the right to choose. It's deceptive law suits like these that are a waste.

binary visions

09-26-2007, 08:56 AM

Well, there is the whole "cruel and unusual punishment" thing, plus who decides what an acceptable level of torture is - or, indeed, how to quantify this particular level of torture since the people who experience it are dead?

I don't know, I see where you're coming from - the cynical part of me says f**k it, five minutes of pain more or less isn't worth worrying about. Realistically, though, there needs to be a line drawn, especially in an issue as sensitive as the death penalty, and that line needs to be at the best effort for a painless demise. Just my $0.02.

MikeD

09-26-2007, 09:16 AM

ire

09-26-2007, 09:42 AM

I don't give a **** what chemicals they give 'em, on either extreme. Just kill them with a minimum of fuss. Make it feel great, for all I care...just put them down quickly and move on if you're going to execute them.

I'm telling ya, firing squad....no 30 minute executions there. You could even let each victim/victim family member have a gun and take part :) It would bring closure for them

LordOpie

09-26-2007, 10:04 AM

Realistically, though, there needs to be a line drawn...

The line was drawn at deciding on capital punishment.

LordOpie

09-26-2007, 10:05 AM

So we should go the roman circus route?
Are you trying to be funny?

binary visions

09-26-2007, 10:27 AM

The line was drawn at deciding on capital punishment.

That's ridiculous.

Capital punishment isn't "kill them however you want."

LordOpie

09-26-2007, 10:35 AM

That's ridiculous.

Capital punishment isn't "kill them however you want."
It's strange that you imply the line of how to kill them is more important than killing them at all.

How is our society so sensitive to the method of execution, but as a whole, we're fine with execution.

I can't get my brain around that.

Secret Squirrel

09-26-2007, 10:37 AM

It's strange that you imply the line of how to kill them is more important than killing them at all.

How is our society so sensitive to the method of execution, but as a whole, we're fine with execution.

I can't get my brain around that.

The answer is pretty simple to me: To ease the conscience.

Spero

09-26-2007, 10:40 AM

I say we bring back gladiatorial fighting and televise it. I could see ratings that rival American Idol.

Secret Squirrel

09-26-2007, 10:41 AM

I say we bring back gladiatorial fighting and televise it. I could see ratings that rival American Idol.

NAMBLA would thrive.

binary visions

09-26-2007, 10:46 AM

It's strange that you imply the line of how to kill them is more important than killing them at all.
No, what's strange is that you can't separate the two when you specifically asked us to do just that. I haven't posted my opinions on capital punishment and you explicitly stated that they were to be kept out of this discussion. If you want to have a discussion about capital punishment, have it. But if you don't want to discuss whether or not capital punishment is wrong, don't expect my response to be "OMG IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU KILL THEM IT'S JUST SO EEEEEVIL."

So, let me clarify. By this:
Let's put aside for a moment the issue of whether the death penalty is a good idea or not.

...you meant:
Let's discuss the issue of whether the death penalty is a good idea or not in the context of the method of execution, specifically, why people think killing people is okay but not how we kill them.
:bonk:

LordOpie

09-26-2007, 10:53 AM

The answer is pretty simple to me: To ease the conscience.

I suppose that is the answer.

...
you're whiney today... still in a murderous mood?

Ok, fine, let's go back to the original topic... where does the line get drawn?

How about putting them under general anesthesia first or at least nitrous oxide? Is that okay with you?

What's an acceptable method of execution for you?

binary visions

09-26-2007, 11:12 AM

LordOpie

09-26-2007, 11:48 AM

IMO, if death has been deemed an acceptable punishment, then death should be provided in as quick and painless a method as we are capable of providing (within reason).

I don't think I'm being a bleeding heart here. The sentence isn't for torture, it's for death. I have a tough time believing that nobody can figure out how to quickly and painlessly kill someone.

I completely agree on all accounts. And I agree that a painfree death should be easy with our technology. How come Dr. Kervorkian's patient's families don't complain about his methods?

I'm not advocating torture, but the lethal injection issue seems a bit silly to me.

MikeD

09-26-2007, 11:53 AM

I have a tough time believing that nobody can figure out how to quickly and painlessly kill someone.

I can...it's messy, though. Would still cost less than a good heroin cocktail...9mm or .40 hollowpoint is pretty cheap at federal rates. Add semi-skilled labor and you're still not approaching the price of all that other elaborate crap. (Sharks, lasers, dipping mechanisms...)

And Secret Squirrel is 100% right...this is about the public having its cake and eating it, too. Frankly, I think if you're going to kill people, as a society, you shouldn't be able to mask it under the disturbing guise of some medical-ish procedure. Killing someone is a terrible thing (in the 'magnitude' sense of the word, not the normative sense)...so we shouldn't try and hide that fact.

valve bouncer

09-26-2007, 12:02 PM

Killing someone is a terrible thing (in the 'magnitude' sense of the word, not the normative sense)...so we shouldn't try and hide that fact.

Agreed, being the executioner should be like jury duty, something everyone is eligible to do. Maybe if more people were exposed to the coal-face so to speak we'd realise what an abomination the whole idea is.

binary visions

09-26-2007, 12:05 PM

I'm not advocating torture, but the lethal injection issue seems a bit silly to me.
The third drug in the cocktail is known to cause excrutiating pain but the initial barbituate is extremely short acting and if the subject doesn't die quickly, they end up paralyzed but semi-conscious and feeling the pain.

Just seems like there should be a way to do this without having a guy paralyzed but conscious and feeling the third drug work its way through his body. The point of that style of execution (and the reason they moved away from other methods) is to be painless and "humane" (funny word for killing someone). If it may not be painless, why wouldn't it be revisited and the method be reworked?

LordOpie

09-26-2007, 12:06 PM

I can...it's messy, though. Would still cost less than a good heroin cocktail...9mm or .40 hollowpoint is pretty cheap at federal rates. Add semi-skilled labor and you're still not approaching the price of all that other elaborate crap. (Sharks, lasers, dipping mechanisms...)
I agree with all that you said, except the cost part.

Isn't like 99% of the cost of killing someone from the legal/appeals system? The actual execution cost is irrelevant in the big financial picture, yeah?

I still vote for a gullotine, very quick, very decisive. Have prisoners clean up the mess :D

MikeD

09-26-2007, 12:06 PM

Agreed, being the executioner should be like jury duty, something everyone is eligible to do. Maybe if more people were exposed to the coal-face so to speak we'd realise what an abomination the whole idea is.

Hm, that's perhaps not such a bad idea in theory (although unlike you, I think the death penalty is sometimes appropriate)...however, just like some people aren't suitable for being in a jury or lifting heavy weights, I don't think it's necessarily fair to force everyone to take part.

I mean, why not make everyone a prison guard or a cop or something for a period of time? I just don't see it as reasonable.

MikeD

09-26-2007, 12:10 PM

I agree with all that you said, except the cost part.

Isn't like 99% of the cost of killing someone from the legal/appeals system? The actual execution cost is irrelevant in the big financial picture, yeah?

I still vote for a gullotine, very quick, very decisive. Have prisoners clean up the mess :D

Dunno about irrelevant...you're still using doctors and other high paid people and expensive apparatus to accomplish the most basic human task...killing.

Guillotine doesn't seem a bad idea to me, either...although something that shuts the brain off instantly (like a big bullet through it) is probably even more "humane" if it matters...and the guillotine is probably more of a spectacle than the modern world wants.

Anyhow, smackheads the world over kill themselves with no pain whatsoever, so yeah, if there's controversey over lethal injection, why not just change the drugs? (I still don't like the Clockwork Orange/1984 aesthetic of the process, myself...)

LordOpie

09-26-2007, 12:16 PM

Dr. Kervorkian
Vice Surgeon General
Dept. of Death

binary visions

09-26-2007, 12:17 PM

Dunno about irrelevant...you're still using doctors and other high paid people and expensive apparatus to accomplish the most basic human task...killing.

Pretty irrelevant in the big picture, though. I mean, say you set up an utterly absurd scenario and you need 3 doctors working at $300,000/year to put in a full 8 hour day in order to accomplish this. That's $150/hour times 3 times 8 hours. Triple it because it's a completely undesirable position.

You've just spent $10k on medical personnel, which is 0.36% of the cost of the estimated appeals costs listed above. Even if you assume that the execution chamber cost a million dollars to build, divide that by 18 killings, that plus the personnel is still only 2% of the overall cost.

ire

09-26-2007, 12:23 PM

The third drug in the cocktail is known to cause excrutiating pain but the initial barbituate is extremely short acting and if the subject doesn't die quickly, they end up paralyzed but semi-conscious and feeling the pain.

If the third drug causes pain, why can't they just OD the person on morphine (or some other pain drug)? Wouldn't that accomplish the job quickly and pain free?

LordOpie

09-26-2007, 12:24 PM

Pretty irrelevant in the big picture, though. I mean, say you set up an utterly absurd scenario and you need 3 doctors working at $300,000/year to put in a full 8 hour day in order to accomplish this. That's $150/hour times 3 times 8 hours. Triple it because it's a completely undesirable position.

You've just spent $10k on medical personnel, which is 0.36% of the cost of the estimated appeals costs listed above. Even if you assume that the execution chamber cost a million dollars to build, divide that by 18 killings, that plus the personnel is still only 2% of the overall cost.
You could re-coup all that cost by renting out the execution chamber for goth parties.

valve bouncer

09-26-2007, 12:29 PM

I mean, why not make everyone a prison guard or a cop or something for a period of time? I just don't see it as reasonable.
Or even base citizenship on having served in the armed forces fighting aliens in outer space.:busted:
;)

binary visions

09-26-2007, 12:32 PM

You could re-coup all that cost by renting out the execution chamber for goth parties.
Instead of getting the Sharpie treatment, I'd hook up passed-out partygoers to the injection line as a gag for when they wake up. Inject them with a little saline for priceless photo opportunities!

"How to use your lethal injection chamber for fun and profit."

valve bouncer

09-26-2007, 12:34 PM

Pretty irrelevant in the big picture, though. I mean, say you set up an utterly absurd scenario and you need 3 doctors working at $300,000/year to put in a full 8 hour day in order to accomplish this. That's $150/hour times 3 times 8 hours. Triple it because it's a completely undesirable position.

You've just spent $10k on medical personnel, which is 0.36% of the cost of the estimated appeals costs listed above. Even if you assume that the execution chamber cost a million dollars to build, divide that by 18 killings, that plus the personnel is still only 2% of the overall cost.
I think, ethically speaking, doctors can't/shouldn't participate in executions. From the Hippocratic Oath
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death
Not that that means anything though. Still you'd think doctors of all people would be willing to make a moral stand. Maybe I'm putting doctors on too high a pedestal here.

ire

09-26-2007, 12:43 PM

I think, ethically speaking, doctors can't/shouldn't participate in executions. From the Hippocratic Oath

Not that that means anything though. Still you'd think doctors of all people would be willing to make a moral stand. Maybe I'm putting doctors on too high a pedestal here.

I read somewhere that their identity is kept secret becuase they could lose their license