Thread: Why did the supreme court uphold lethal injection even tho it's a fact that it often tortures inmates?

I mean when you're paralyzed and still able to feel the drugs burning your insides as well as slowly suffocating, doesn't that qualify as, oh...I dunno...cruel and unusual punishment?
It is a fact that it tortures people.

It's been proven via autopsy
ANd enough changing the subject to the ethics of cruel and unusual punishment.

It's not "a little" pain to suffocate and burn while paralyzed and unable to signal your mistaken state of awareness.

It looks better to bleeding hearts than shooting, hanging,gassing,etc.

i remember studying and giving a presentation about this during my college years in criminal justice. the truth is lethal injection and along with any method of death is indeed cruel and unusual punishment. then why do we do it? because of simple revenge... he owes a debt to society and our branch's of government just dont want to let it go.

The claim that autopsies have proven that people have been 'tortured' by a lethal injection execution is pure junk science of no medical validity whatsoever.

The fact is the triple mixture has been selected because it's believed to be the MOST humane way to execute someone. "Cruel" requires an intent to make someone suffer - the entire intent behind the lethal injection is to prevent suffering. The only think 'unusual' about it as a method of punishment is the lengths the sytem goes to to prevent the criminal from suffering.

I am opposed to the death penalty - on legal grounds though, not on humanitarian ones - but let's not base the anti-death penalty argument on inventions like this one.

Richard

Imagine how their victims felt when those death row inmates brutalized them, often very painfully. They would have loved a tranquilizer to help the pain of getting shot, stabbed, raped, etc

I do agree though. The use of all those medications to kill an inmate is quite costly to the taxpayer. I say a bullet to the head can be a great alternative; no pain at all.

...you're not going to like this...but... when a convicted murderer is sentenced to death, frankly... I don't give a rats "pa-tootie"... try to remember the victim who suffered at the hands of the convicted murderer !!!! as far as I'm concerned, the State should do away with lethal injection and just go back to a Tall Oak tree and a rope.

, Bullshit!!!!!!!!! Vets put down animals every day, humanely, by lethal injection. Maybne prisons should employ vets to do the lethal injections. They;ve been getting it right for decades.
How do you know it is painful.? Ever have it done on you???

If one of those inmates killed your loving mother, brother or
friend hurt them and after let them bleed to death in an isolated location not caring about the pain
they were going to cause not only the person they left behind
begging for help but also for the loved ones left behind do you think you'll be worry about the little pain they had while they were dying?
I'm catholic and I don't believe in death penalty but I'm glad
other people do.
My beautiful sister got shot to death by a criminal. She was
22 happily married and pregnant at the time, they never found the "animal" that killed her. She was going to the supermarket to buy food to make dinner that was her only
fault in life.
Those people that are put to death aren't good people,
they are "cold blooded criminals" Just remember that.....
I think you'll worry a little less about it.

I have to agree with rickinnocal here. The 8th amendment prhibits "cruel and unusual" punishment. The Supreme Court has long held that to meet that standard, one must prove that the method of execution presents a substantial or objectively intolerable risk of serious harm or pain. The petitioners in the most recent case (Baze v. Rees) didn't even argue that the 3-drug protocol resulted in a substantial risk of harm, but in fact, admitted that the use of sodium thepental followed by pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride was a humane method of execution. Their argument against the Kent. method was based on a "what if" scenario - they claimed that if a mistake was made in administering the sodium thepental, the prisoner would experience pain. The court held that there was no requirement that there be absolutely no pain or discomfort and that the mere possibility of error was insufficient to find the method to be 'cruel and unusual".
Sometimes it is difficult to separate one's general stance against the death penalty with the question of what constitute "cruel and unusual". I oppose the death penalty on legal grounds - there is no uniformity between the states as to what crimes merit execution and it is typically unfairly applied in cases where the defendent is a minority and/or a member of the lower socioeconomic classes. But I really don't have a problem with the execution method that, absent human error, is basically pretty humane.
And if a mistake is made, causing a little pain before death...well, nothing designed or performed by humans is perfect. After all, I still remember the Cook Co. sheriffs carrying the bodies out of John Wayne Gacy's house - 33 in all.

One more thing - there has never been any valid medical evidence of a prisoner being paralyzed and suffocated while awake. Sodium thepental, which is the 1st drug administered, is a fast-acting barbituate sedative that induces a deep, comalike unconsciousness. An injection of that, and you wouldn't feel an anvil falling onto your head.

how do you know it hurts? have the people who are paralyzed and cant talk tell you or anyone this hurts? has someone said gimme the injection and ill tell you what happens? i ahve always wondered how people know it is painful
i am sure the electric chair was more painful.ut it was done for years.
i have an idea....lets just shoot them in the head.its instant and they wont know what hit thme, unless the marksmen is a bad shot (being sacrcastic)

my guess would be that as far as killing someone it is the most effective and painless way to complete the process. i am sure the euthanasia of animals is the same, but we dont cry about that if the animal suffers "its what was best" so if the survivors of murder victim are suffering, shouldnt something be done to help them feel better...like killing the SOB that most likely brutalized their loved one?