Child rapist/killer used as guinea pig for first time new drug combo for his execution.

[InformedIgnorance]

Probably something we should do our best to avoid - the slippery slope and all.

 

[Poisonshady313]

As for your differentiation between convicts and innocents, morally, I don't get it.

Seems pretty straightforward. They're not terminally ill cancer patients being put out of their misery. They've been sentenced to death for murder. I'm not advocating cruel and unusual punishment. But the standard for what constitutes cruel and/or unusual is certainly not the same for convicts and innocents.

 

[averageJOE]

Regarding perspective... let's keep this in perspective. They're not trying to think of new ways to kill a person effectively for fun. The European manufacturer of pentobarbital is refusing to sell it to the State of Ohio.


I think all remaining death penalty states should just settle on one effective method of execution, because one of the biggest wastes of time and resources is appeals challenging the method of execution.

We should delay executions because the drugs being used might not be safe and effective? They're being used to put a murderer to death. If the drug cocktail isn't lethal enough, let an officer put a bullet through the condemned murderer's head, and be done with it.

The underlined is the point that needs to be understood. However, I will never understand the need to spend all this money to try and make quick and painless deaths. A rope is super cheap.

 

[Penumbra]

In light of the extreme severity of his crimes, there is understandably little remorse in regards to his personal comfort while undergoing execution.

Still, it does beg the question as to wither it is appropriate to try something "new" regarding executions. Do we really need "new " and or "improved " methodologies in light of whats already proven effective concerning this?

Imo if it's going to be done, stick with whats proven already. I wonder if it's rather draconian or somewhat compassionate depending on perspective to continually think of new ways in regards to killing a person effectively.

Thoughts?

In Ohio Execution, State Will Use Untried Drug Combo | TIME.com

They can't stick to what's proven already because they don't have the drug available, so most of these OP questions or comments aren't actually relevant to what was linked to. They're not trying to improve it- just doing it a different unproven way because they don't have the normal drug they'd use. I don't know much about the chemical aspects of it so if there's a professional opinion that it'll work, then I don't have a major problem with it other than that I think most executions are either unnecessary or done for the wrong reasons.

Personally, I don't see much point in all of this chemical stuff. If I was an inmate, I'd pick firing squad as my death choice if that option was still available, like they did to that one man a few years ago.

I don't agree with the comments for using death-row prisoners as science experiments. (Unless, as in the case for typical volunteer human trials, prisoners wish to volunteer.)

 

[Falvlun]

Seems pretty straightforward. They're not terminally ill cancer patients being put out of their misery. They've been sentenced to death for murder. I'm not advocating cruel and unusual punishment. But the standard for what constitutes cruel and/or unusual is certainly not the same for convicts and innocents.

You don't think that being used for medical experiments constitutes cruel and unsual? I don't know... it almost seems like that phrasing was written for stuff like this.

 

[Aquitaine]

I don't agree with the comments for using death-row prisoners as science experiments. (Unless, as in the case for typical volunteer human trials, prisoners wish to volunteer.)

I can't speak for others, but with me it's more to do with the fact that testing is done on innocent animals in the first place, so (from a hypothetical philosophical perspective) if I had to make a choice between tests being done on innocent animals or Humans who have commited such grave acts, I'd go with the Humans.

However, ideally I wish there was a way where we didn't have to do tests on any sentient beings - sadly though I am not sure if that's possible (?)

 

[Poisonshady313]

You don't think that being used for medical experiments constitutes cruel and unsual? I don't know... it almost seems like that phrasing was written for stuff like this.

If we were using them as guinea pigs for experimental brain transplants, I'd be inclined to agree that this would be cruel and unusual.

If we were giving them illnesses so we could test potential cures for those illnesses, I'd be inclined to agree that this would be cruel and unusual.

But we're talking about testing a drug, the sole purpose of which is to cause that individual's death... the penalty to which he was sentenced.

The first person to be executed via the three drug cocktail... that was an experiment. The same goes for pentobarbital.

I'm not going to lose any sleep if a murderer's final moments are less than completely painless. He's in an execution chamber, not a hospice center.

 

[Penumbra]

Bullets to the heart or head don't require experimentation.

It seems to me that lethal injection with a set of several drugs performed by non-doctors just tries to make the event seem less violent to the public than it really is.

 

[McBell]

Bullets to the heart or head don't require experimentation.

It seems to me that lethal injection with a set of several drugs performed by non-doctors just tries to make the event seem less violent to the public than it really is.

I agree.

We should bring back public hangings.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Bullets to the heart or head don't require experimentation.

It seems to me that lethal injection with a set of several drugs performed by non-doctors just tries to make the event seem less violent to the public than it really is.

Yeah, I agree. We should just put a bullet in their head and be done with it. I don't understand all this playing around.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I believe the reason is to avoid the prospect of death sentences being carried out in such a way as designed to be painful (which is the likely consequence of not having rules that say the reverse)

 

[Falvlun]

If we were using them as guinea pigs for experimental brain transplants, I'd be inclined to agree that this would be cruel and unusual.

If we were giving them illnesses so we could test potential cures for those illnesses, I'd be inclined to agree that this would be cruel and unusual.

But we're talking about testing a drug, the sole purpose of which is to cause that individual's death... the penalty to which he was sentenced.

The first person to be executed via the three drug cocktail... that was an experiment. The same goes for pentobarbital.

I'm not going to lose any sleep if a murderer's final moments are less than completely painless. He's in an execution chamber, not a hospice center.

Ah, I get you now.

TBH, I can't really muster up much outrage at this particular case. I don't think that there is much wrong with testing this drug for death if there's a reasonable certainty that it will cause death.

I was thinking of the more general "Death row inmates should be used as test animals" argument.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So much research, development & application work have been done
on killing people that you'd think we'd have it down pat by now.

Well a lot of it went through how could we make it as painful looking as possible, now we've gone the whole "lets make it painless" route.

 

[Magic Man]

revenge?
Interesting that you jump to that conclusion.

That's what anything beyond keeping them locked up for life (or until they're proven not to be a safety liability) basically is.

 

[CrazyRabbitLady]

Without reading the entire thread because I'm being lazy atm I say if it's cheaper to test it. Also it may have other uses that they may be testing. It could be quicker and less painful therefore more "humane." While I'm all for as least humane as possible and would rather just be all off with their heads for child offenders and all sexual offenders I can see why this would be beneficial.

 

[McBell]

That's what anything beyond keeping them locked up for life (or until they're proven not to be a safety liability) basically is.

Why do you draw your arbitrary line between locked up for life and death?

 

[Magic Man]

Why do you draw your arbitrary line between locked up for life and death?

It's not arbitrary. Locking up someone who is a danger to society accomplishes the goal of keeping society safe from them, which is all that's necessary. Going beyond what is necessary to give them a "punishment they deserve" would then be revenge.

 

[McBell]

It's not arbitrary. Locking up someone who is a danger to society accomplishes the goal of keeping society safe from them, which is all that's necessary. Going beyond what is necessary to give them a "punishment they deserve" would then be revenge.

how is "locking them up for life" not revenge?

 

[Magic Man]

how is "locking them up for life" not revenge?

I already explained that part. They are a danger to society. We have to somehow remove them from society for the safety of everyone else.

 

[McBell]

I already explained that part. They are a danger to society. We have to somehow remove them from society for the safety of everyone else.

You have not explained how killing them is "revenge", yet locking them up for life is not revenge.

In fact, the only difference I can see is the death.
What makes death an act of revenge as opposed to "locking them up for life"?