• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

South Carolina wants to resume executions with firing squad and electric chair, says "instantaneous or painless" death not mandated

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member

In the balance are the death sentences of 33 inmates who are on South Carolina's death row. While there hasn't been a formal moratorium, the state hasn't performed an execution in nearly 13 years after the drugs it used for lethal injection expired and companies refused to sell more to prison officials unless they could hide their identities from the public.

A nationwide shortage of lethal injection drugs has led other U.S. states to add new execution methods to their death penalty protocols. Alabama just executed one condemned inmate by nitrogen hypoxia, a method that it authorized in the wake of a string of botched lethal injections that two death row prisoners survived. The controversial method had never been tested before inside the death chamber when Alabama used it to execute Kenneth Eugene Smith last month, but it is one of three states, along with Oklahoma and Mississippi, that technically allows executions via asphyxiation by nitrogen gas.

It is a rather odd way to phrase it: "A nationwide shortage of lethal injection drugs." It makes it sound like there's this huge rush on lethal injection drugs.

South Carolina says all three execution methods allowed in the state — electrocution, lethal injection, and now, firing squad — fit existing protocols. "Courts have never held the death has to be instantaneous or painless," wrote Grayson Lambert, a lawyer for Gov. Henry McMaster's office.

I suppose I would pick firing squad, if I had to pick between the three of them. It seems simple and quick enough.

Still, if the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, then doesn't that preclude the use of any punishments which aren't instantaneous or painless? South Carolina officials appear to take a contrary view.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.



It is a rather odd way to phrase it: "A nationwide shortage of lethal injection drugs." It makes it sound like there's this huge rush on lethal injection drugs.



I suppose I would pick firing squad, if I had to pick between the three of them. It seems simple and quick enough.

Still, if the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, then doesn't that preclude the use of any punishments which aren't instantaneous or painless? South Carolina officials appear to take a contrary view.
As deserving as criminals would be for a painful death, it does not behoove a government to reflect that pain in kind by lowering themselves to a standard equal to that of the perpetrator.

I think government should always when execution is warranted and necessary, to make death quick and as painless as possible in it's assurance that particular person will never ever brutally kill another person again and bringing final closure for the victims affected by such a person.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Some interesting observations on methods via firing squad....


It does make me wonder why we don't kill multiple prisoners by explosion. Messy but clearly quick and painless.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It is a rather odd way to phrase it: "A nationwide shortage of lethal injection drugs." It makes it sound like there's this huge rush on lethal injection drugs.
Only to those unfamiliar with suppliers'
refusing to sell to government for
executions.
I suppose I would pick firing squad, if I had to pick between the three of them. It seems simple and quick enough.

Still, if the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, then doesn't that preclude the use of any punishments which aren't instantaneous or painless? South Carolina officials appear to take a contrary view.
I'm pro firing squad.
It has a near perfect record of instant death.
But I'm also anti death penalty.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Only to those unfamiliar with suppliers'
refusing to sell to government for
executions.

Yeah, although that's been going on for years now. They've had more than enough time to find other suppliers - or even to build a lab to make it themselves.

I'm pro firing squad.
It has a near perfect record of instant death.
But I'm also anti death penalty.

I think there would have to be a constitutional amendment to be able to prohibit the death penalty. "Cruel and unusual" doesn't seem clear enough on that point. Back then, they didn't think that hanging was cruel or unusual, since it was still allowed.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I think there would have to be a constitutional amendment to be able to prohibit the death penalty. "Cruel and unusual" doesn't seem clear enough on that point. Back then, they didn't think that hanging was cruel or unusual, since it was still allowed.
Interesting. But we are dealing with conditions that we live in today. And we could have endless debate about whether or not it is cruel there can be no argument that in 2024 it is obviously unusual.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yeah, although that's been going on for years now. They've had more than enough time to find other suppliers - or even to build a lab to make it themselves.
Government researching, developing, & producing
it's own pharmaceuticals for the occasional execution?
Not cost effectdive.
I think there would have to be a constitutional amendment to be able to prohibit the death penalty. "Cruel and unusual" doesn't seem clear enough on that point. Back then, they didn't think that hanging was cruel or unusual, since it was still allowed.
Death appears to be an original intention
that wasn't considered cruel.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Government researching, developing, & producing
it's own pharmaceuticals for the occasional execution?
Not cost effectdive.

Death appears to be an original intention
that wasn't considered cruel.

It's kind of a macabre subject to think about, but I wonder how much research and investment would it actually take? One hears many tragic stories about people overdosing by accident - or sometimes an unscrupulous dealer might cook up a "hot shot." But the government can't figure out a way to do it on purpose? Another option would be to simply emulate the formula and process that Dr. Kevorkian used. Not that I have any personal experience with this, but still, humans have known how to make poisons for thousands of years.

Not that I would actually want them to do any of that, as I'm also anti-death penalty - and if this is a way of stopping executions, then okay. But there are all kinds of other ways. It just seems kind of weird, that's all.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It's kind of a macabre subject to think about, but I wonder how much research and investment would it actually take? One hears many tragic stories about people overdosing by accident - or sometimes an unscrupulous dealer might cook up a "hot shot." But the government can't figure out a way to do it on purpose? Another option would be to simply emulate the formula and process that Dr. Kevorkian used. Not that I have any personal experience with this, but still, humans have known how to make poisons for thousands of years.

Not that I would actually want them to do any of that, as I'm also anti-death penalty - and if this is a way of stopping executions, then okay. But there are all kinds of other ways. It just seems kind of weird, that's all.
Those making poisons and shady dealers aren't bound to the moral and ethical standards a state that at least is decent is held to. Same goes for academics and researchers. It probably wouldn't be hard at all, except many who would have to be involved ethically and legally wouldn't be allowed to participate (its why lethal injections aren't done with medical professionals).
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Only to those unfamiliar with suppliers'
refusing to sell to government for
executions.

I'm pro firing squad.
It has a near perfect record of instant death.
But I'm also anti death penalty.
I wonder, though. Let's assume several shots hit the heart and stops it immediately. How long might the brain continue being aware? (I always had that same thought about the guillotine, by the way. Read below, from 1905).

'French doctor, Beaurieux, was permitted to make an investigation of a severed head, of a criminal called Languille, immediately after guillotining: "Here is what I was able to note immediately after the decapitation: the eyelids and lips of the decapitated man worked in irregularly rhythmic contractions for about 4 or 6 seconds. I waited several seconds longer. The spasmodic movements ceased. The face relaxed, the lids half-closed in the eyeballs, leaving only the white of the conjunctiva visible, exactly as in the dying whom we have occasion to see every day [...] It was then that I called in a strong, sharp, voice: 'Languille!' I then saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contraction -- I insist advisedly on this pecularity -- but with an even movement, quite distinct and normal, such as happens in everyday life, with people awakened or torn from their thoughts. Next, Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves. I was not, then, dealing with a vague dull look, without any expression that can be observed any day in dying people to whom one speaks: I was dealing with undeniably living eyes which were looking at me." By 1956, further research had proved, in the words of governemntal advisers Drs Piedelievre and Fournier, that "death [by decapitation] is not instantaneous [...] every vital element survives [...it is] a savage vivisection, followed by a premature burial." The French government abolished execution by decapitation in 1977.'​
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Those making poisons and shady dealers aren't bound to the moral and ethical standards a state that at least is decent is held to. Same goes for academics and researchers. It probably wouldn't be hard at all, except many who would have to be involved ethically and legally wouldn't be allowed to participate (its why lethal injections aren't done with medical professionals).

Yes, although it's sometimes difficult to consider an ethical way of putting someone to death. Although, there are some cases where doctor-assisted suicide of a terminally ill patient might be considered ethical - though I think there's some differences of opinion on that. I don't know what went into Dr. Kevorkian's formula, but the whole idea was that it was a far less painful way to go.

I'm not even sure that lethal injection is all that ethical in any case, even if they're doing it the right way. It's supposed to be as quick and painless as possible - which is what they used to say about the electric chair - or even hanging. But after hearing of a few botched lethal injections, it doesn't seem so quick or painless after all.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
"Courts have never held the death has to be instantaneous or painless,"

It's that line that bothers me most. Many supporters of the death penalty say (these days) "it's not about punishment, it's about protecting society." But if that's the case, then lingering death or pain are both gratuitous.

In any case, I am still totally opposed to the death penalty because I am aware of too many false convictions for capital crimes. Those do nothing to protect society -- and society certainly did nothing to protect those so convicted!!
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I'm not even sure that lethal injection is all that ethical in any case, even if they're doing it the right way. It's supposed to be as quick and painless as possible - which is what they used to say about the electric chair - or even hanging. But after hearing of a few botched lethal injections, it doesn't seem so quick or painless after all.
Yeah, the lethal injection is a wide awake nightmare that can only be described as heinous torture.
And then the chair, that one is so gruesome it turned supporters into opponents.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Shouldn't that be for the family and friends of the victim to decide? I don't know about you but if I had a family member who was murdered then another death certainly wouldn't bring closure or help me heal from the loss.
My uncle was murdered in Florida and trust me they would of had no objection in seeing the death penalty apply. Unfortunately it wasn't so and it wasn't the wishes of my family.

He's now free today walking the streets after serving less than 25 years in prison.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I'm not even sure that lethal injection is all that ethical in any case, even if they're doing it the right way. It's supposed to be as quick and painless as possible

Yeah, the lethal injection is a wide awake nightmare that can only be described as heinous torture.
Doesn't this bring up another question, though? I mean, here in Canada, we have legal access to Medical Assitance in Dying (MAID), and this is available in multiple other jurisdictions. And in these situations, it seems to me, death is managed so taht it is essentially painless. Why can the means provided to people who want to die not be used for executing those who don't want to?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I wonder, though. Let's assume several shots hit the heart and stops it immediately. How long might the brain continue being aware? (I always had that same thought about the guillotine, by the way. Read below, from 1905).

'French doctor, Beaurieux, was permitted to make an investigation of a severed head, of a criminal called Languille, immediately after guillotining: "Here is what I was able to note immediately after the decapitation: the eyelids and lips of the decapitated man worked in irregularly rhythmic contractions for about 4 or 6 seconds. I waited several seconds longer. The spasmodic movements ceased. The face relaxed, the lids half-closed in the eyeballs, leaving only the white of the conjunctiva visible, exactly as in the dying whom we have occasion to see every day [...] It was then that I called in a strong, sharp, voice: 'Languille!' I then saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contraction -- I insist advisedly on this pecularity -- but with an even movement, quite distinct and normal, such as happens in everyday life, with people awakened or torn from their thoughts. Next, Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves. I was not, then, dealing with a vague dull look, without any expression that can be observed any day in dying people to whom one speaks: I was dealing with undeniably living eyes which were looking at me." By 1956, further research had proved, in the words of governemntal advisers Drs Piedelievre and Fournier, that "death [by decapitation] is not instantaneous [...] every vital element survives [...it is] a savage vivisection, followed by a premature burial." The French government abolished execution by decapitation in 1977.'​
For my execution by firing squad,
I want head shots.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member



It is a rather odd way to phrase it: "A nationwide shortage of lethal injection drugs." It makes it sound like there's this huge rush on lethal injection drugs.



I suppose I would pick firing squad, if I had to pick between the three of them. It seems simple and quick enough.

Still, if the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, then doesn't that preclude the use of any punishments which aren't instantaneous or painless? South Carolina officials appear to take a contrary view.
Sounds to me like the officials of South Carolina would fit right in with the Taliban in my view.

Talk about having no interest in even understanding the causes of crime or how it may be fixed and just inflicting cruelty for the convenience of the rich as I see it.
 
Top