Leathal-Injection
- Thread starter R1D2
- Start date
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/05/lethal_injections_101.html
says;
Lethal Injections 101
A history of the deadly cocktail.
By Daniel Engber|Posted Wednesday, May 3, 2006, at 6:36 PM ET
Download the MP3 audio version of this story here,*or sign up for The Explainer's free daily podcast on iTunes.
"It don't work," complained Ohio death-row inmate Joseph Lewis Clark as prison officials struggled to execute him by lethal injection Tuesday. Last week, the Supreme Court heard from lawyers who say the standard three-drug lethal injection protocol creates the risk of "wanton and gratuitous pain." Why do they use three drugs for lethal injections?
Because that's what they've always done. Oklahoma passed the first lethal-injection statute in May of 1977 in an effort to come up with a more humane way to execute prisoners. (The national ban on execution had just been lifted, and Gary Gilmore had been put to death by firing squad that January.)* The Oklahoma lawmakers declared that "the punishment of death must be inflicted by continuous, intravenous administration of a lethal quantity of an ultra-short-acting barbiturate" combined with a chemical paralytic agent. The first drug (in practice, almost always sodium thiopental) would cause anesthesia, and the second (usually pancuronium bromide) would relax the muscles in the body. Texas passed its own lethal-injection law the following day but used more generic language.
Advertisement
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections added the third drug in the cocktail—potassium chloride, which stops the heart—to its lethal-injection protocol the same year. The combination of poisons was supposed to increase the certainty of death. Texas used all three drugs when it conducted the first execution by lethal injection in 1982.
Other states copied their procedures from Oklahoma and Texas. Today, 34 others use the same lethal-injection cocktail. (Only one state, Nebraska, insists on electrocution for its death-row inmates.) When asked in court how they developed their injection protocols, corrections officials have said they learned directly from agencies in other states.
If the three-drug cocktail may cause unnecessary suffering, why don't death-row inmates get the same drugs doctors prescribe for assisted suicide? Terminally ill patients in Oregon can take a large dose by mouth of a barbiturate that puts them in a coma within about five minutes, with an apparently painless death coming around half an hour later. (In some rare cases, an assisted suicide by barbiturates can take as long as two days.) For one thing, corrections officials haven't changed the three-drug protocol because there hasn't been significant pressure to do so until recently. They also may prefer the standard cocktail because it works much faster than straight barbiturates when administered properly. (The lethal-injection cocktail typically kills within 10 minutes.) They also have to deal with involuntary subjects, and it's easier to inject someone who's strapped to a table than it is to force oral medication down his throat.
says;
Lethal Injections 101
A history of the deadly cocktail.
By Daniel Engber|Posted Wednesday, May 3, 2006, at 6:36 PM ET
Download the MP3 audio version of this story here,*or sign up for The Explainer's free daily podcast on iTunes.
"It don't work," complained Ohio death-row inmate Joseph Lewis Clark as prison officials struggled to execute him by lethal injection Tuesday. Last week, the Supreme Court heard from lawyers who say the standard three-drug lethal injection protocol creates the risk of "wanton and gratuitous pain." Why do they use three drugs for lethal injections?
Because that's what they've always done. Oklahoma passed the first lethal-injection statute in May of 1977 in an effort to come up with a more humane way to execute prisoners. (The national ban on execution had just been lifted, and Gary Gilmore had been put to death by firing squad that January.)* The Oklahoma lawmakers declared that "the punishment of death must be inflicted by continuous, intravenous administration of a lethal quantity of an ultra-short-acting barbiturate" combined with a chemical paralytic agent. The first drug (in practice, almost always sodium thiopental) would cause anesthesia, and the second (usually pancuronium bromide) would relax the muscles in the body. Texas passed its own lethal-injection law the following day but used more generic language.
Advertisement
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections added the third drug in the cocktail—potassium chloride, which stops the heart—to its lethal-injection protocol the same year. The combination of poisons was supposed to increase the certainty of death. Texas used all three drugs when it conducted the first execution by lethal injection in 1982.
Other states copied their procedures from Oklahoma and Texas. Today, 34 others use the same lethal-injection cocktail. (Only one state, Nebraska, insists on electrocution for its death-row inmates.) When asked in court how they developed their injection protocols, corrections officials have said they learned directly from agencies in other states.
If the three-drug cocktail may cause unnecessary suffering, why don't death-row inmates get the same drugs doctors prescribe for assisted suicide? Terminally ill patients in Oregon can take a large dose by mouth of a barbiturate that puts them in a coma within about five minutes, with an apparently painless death coming around half an hour later. (In some rare cases, an assisted suicide by barbiturates can take as long as two days.) For one thing, corrections officials haven't changed the three-drug protocol because there hasn't been significant pressure to do so until recently. They also may prefer the standard cocktail because it works much faster than straight barbiturates when administered properly. (The lethal-injection cocktail typically kills within 10 minutes.) They also have to deal with involuntary subjects, and it's easier to inject someone who's strapped to a table than it is to force oral medication down his throat.
What's the general consensus here?
Is it humane?
Are you for or against lethal injection?
3 drugs or 1?
Death row inmates should die by some other means?
If you are against capital punishment how should the victims receive justice?
Or should they?
An what do the victims family get out of the prisoners death?
Is it humane?
Are you for or against lethal injection?
3 drugs or 1?
Death row inmates should die by some other means?
If you are against capital punishment how should the victims receive justice?
Or should they?
An what do the victims family get out of the prisoners death?
Last edited:
I'm against capital punishment.
Would sitting in a cell 10ft X 10ft in solitary confinement for the rest of your life be any more humane? Also the cost to keep a person alive is over 50,000 a year in prisons so would keeping someone alive until they died be financially wise? They will also need medical treatments which could cost even more with transplants and other surgeries available to them. Keeping a person in a single cell without the chance to see other prisoners or talk with anyone , to me, is more than cruel and unusual punishment and death would be much quicker and more humane.
Just put a bullet in the head would be better, quicker and no way to get that method screwed up. I'd still think any form of being certain the person died would be fine with me. I guess you seem to forget that might have tortured others before they died or molested them until they died. It is easy to say that killing is wrong unless someone in your family was the victim and they went though hell before they died.
If it was your child that the murderer had killed would you see capital punishment any differently?
Doesn't matter, they die either way don't they?
Doesn't matter, they should be executed any way that kills them, they didn't care about how they killed their victims did they?
Satisfaction that the person who tortured their family member isn't going to be able to do that to any else ever again. Families also get closure to go on with their lives knowing that justice was done for their lost family member.
It is people like you that are nothing more than a troll. You asked about lethal injection as a way to kill someone found guilty of a crime which gets the death sentence. That was all you asked, not if this happened or that went wrong. So would you start another thread, unless you're just a troll, to ask about if wrongly accused people being put to death.
If you want a humane death, let the condemned choose his drug of choice for the OD.
But if there's no doubt about one's guilt, do to irrefutable Forensic evidence then I wouldn't be opposed to letting the death fit the crime (tortured until dead) on pay per view broadcast. So other future criminals can see what their future might hold and those looking for justice can get their full share.
Sorry if that offends anyone, but I don't give a shit about those people that hurt others for their personal gain.
But if there's no doubt about one's guilt, do to irrefutable Forensic evidence then I wouldn't be opposed to letting the death fit the crime (tortured until dead) on pay per view broadcast. So other future criminals can see what their future might hold and those looking for justice can get their full share.
Sorry if that offends anyone, but I don't give a shit about those people that hurt others for their personal gain.
Someone took a unhappy pill yesterday! This is my thread.. I started it.. FYI.
I am trying to get opinions. I was also trying to remain neutral. In the middle so to speak. Because I am trying to justify my stance an I am really more for it but I am little against it. Maybe its my age, religion, or the fact I have came close to death, or I see my family. But I seriously see both views. But if someone took out one of my family members I would not want some lengthy trial an some 20 or more years waiting for the prisoner to die. I would want to kill him myself. Or I would hope the courts would not let them linger past 10 years. An what's up with all the repeals they get. Limit them they got where they are for a reason..
Could you provide a link that supports your claim of over $50,000 per month? Also, did you investigate how much it cost to put someone to death? Include all legal costs and the incarceration costs while all the legal challenges are being resolved. I've heard the cost of putting someone to death is usually more than a life sentence. With the exception of Texas and maybe Florida.
If you read what I wrote I said a YEAR not a MONTH. A bullet costs very little but drugs and doctors to administer them are very expensive.
Sorry, time to get my eyes checked again. Yes if executions were all done like Texas the cost would be down. However it's quick and final, so I would like no death penalty without irrefutable forensic evidence. I don't trust eye witness testimony or circumstantial evidence enough for the death penalty.
If you must do it there are better ways than potassium chloride. A massive morphine shot for instance
However capital punishment is more expensive and immoral and becoming a breach of international law, it's on it's way out and thank god for that.
However capital punishment is more expensive and immoral and becoming a breach of international law, it's on it's way out and thank god for that.
Is it in Australia? It is certainly not in Malaysia.
A thing is immoral when WE say it is immoral. There is no objective morality. As a mother, I am telling you, it is not immoral at all...
Looks like nobody answered all your questions, so...
1. It is probably the most humane way, and I am not sure they deserve to go in such an easy way.
2. Lethal injection is just as good as any other way, if it gets the job done.
3. 3 drugs are more human, but 1 would also do it.
4. Some criminals should suffer the same fate what they caused..
5. Being raped 3 times a week for eternity is also good punishment, although inhuman.
6. Well, tasing the criminal's balls a few times a day also provides good justice.
7. Closure?
1. It is probably the most humane way, and I am not sure they deserve to go in such an easy way.
2. Lethal injection is just as good as any other way, if it gets the job done.
3. 3 drugs are more human, but 1 would also do it.
4. Some criminals should suffer the same fate what they caused..
5. Being raped 3 times a week for eternity is also good punishment, although inhuman.
6. Well, tasing the criminal's balls a few times a day also provides good justice.
7. Closure?
Try the international declaration of civil and political rights. Its an optional protocol for now but hopefully it will become mandatory
Strange that we are talking about the criminals rights and not the victims rights because the victims never have any real help from anyone after the criminal has been put in jail. I'd think that victims should be helped and given aid if need be rather than putting more money in keeping a convicted murderer alive or more humane ways to kill them. Just my rant, sorry to go off topic.
Oh and if you want to provide victim support you can do that too, has nothing to do with the ethical treatment of prisioners. It's ironic that the same country with more people in jail per capita than any country except china also has the worst victims of crime compensation. Take the guy who got his face eaten. If that was Australia he would have any medical treatment he needed paid by the state victims of crime compensation scheme and Medicare.