Why lethal injection for the death penalty and why not let prisoners move up their executions?

[serp777]

I've never understood why there's this elaborate process for using three drugs to prepare for injecting potassium chloride. My question is why we don't just put a bullet in their heads--its cheaper, less painful, and faster. I mean if the goal is for inmates on death row to suffer with lethal injection, there are many other ways to do it like just not giving them any water for four days. But the other thing is that there are so many other drugs that would be superior. Opiates, for example, would be ideal. An opiate overdose is going to cause severe respiratory depression, enough to stop breathing. All you'd have to do is keep administering fentanyl until they die and it would be painless since it would put them unconscious. I just don't understand at all the ethical or logical reasons behind the current incredibly stupid lethal injections. Apparently current lethal injection is quite painful.

Also, why don't we let prisoners accelerate their executions? It seems like such a waste to have them spend 20+years sitting in a cell, soaking up tax payer dollars and fearing the day they die. Presumably if you gave them the option to move their execution dates forward, that would be attractive to some inmates. You could also offer incentives for forgiveness if they agreed to accelerate their execution, such as well use the money we would have spent on your accommodations to give the family who suffered some financial relief, or they could give it to charity to save many lives. it just seems like the whole death penalty process in the US is completely ridiculous and stupid. The last question is why don't we let prisoners with a life sentences accept executions instead? I'd prefer an execution over life in prison i think. It seems like it'd be a great option to reduce the burden on the prison system and help inmates avoid a pointlessly long, painful, useless prison sentence.

 

[Valjean]

I agree. It's a ridiculous, byzantine system to accomplish a very simple, easily achieved goal.

 

[Father Heathen]

Just about every aspect of the prison system is *** backwards.

 

[Augustus]

The Saudis got a cheap and painless system...

 

[Poisonshady313]

Also, why don't we let prisoners accelerate their executions?

Actually, we do.

The most famous example, and only one I can think of without looking it up, is Timothy McVeigh.

The other that I had a vague memory of but I had to look up was Robert Gleason.

He was already serving life for murder when he murdered his cellmate. While awaiting sentencing, he murdered another inmate in the yard.

Virginia finally sentenced him to death, and he waived his appeals, and chose the electric chair instead of lethal injection.

He was executed in 2013.

The last question is why don't we let prisoners with a life sentences accept executions instead?

I think we ought to go one step further. Any person sentenced to a ridiculously overstated sentence (i.e. 1,000 years or "multiple life sentences") ought to be bumped up to a death sentence.

 

[England my lionheart]

From an outside perspective I don't get that you can put someone on death row and years later give the 3 injections that sometimes don't work, how cruel is that.

More humane would be, "you will never be released, if you like the idea of being someone's ***** for the rest of your life in prison OK, if not here's a gun with 1 bullet in it so don't miss", job done.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

We shouldn't be doing capital punishment at all, imo. We are only one of forty countries in the entire world that does, and one of the only industrialized ones. It's not been shown to have any meaningful effect on crime via deterrence and executing innocent individuals still happens.

That aside, just about every execution method has been botched before. Botched hangings produce a broken neck and severe spinal pain before severe asphyxiation pain. Botched shootings have blown people's faces off without killing them, or bullets have been caught in unexpected places in the skull without killing someone. Electric chair can be botched (and it isn't pretty). Anything that starts with anesthesia can be botched (which includes current lethal injection). An opiate overdose, for example, can cause violent gastric reactions which make you throw up endlessly and get tons of painful inflammation without killing you, or you could have semi-paralyzed breathing but the rest of you won't fall asleep and you feel like you're drowning. Even throwing someone off a really tall building can cause them to go into painful cardiac arrest before they hit the ground (and people have survived some pretty incredible falls). It always can be ugly. It always can be messy. It always can be cruel and unusual.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

From what I've read, lethal injection was introduced because it's actually less painful and more reliable than other methods of execution, such as hanging and electrocution. Importantly, it also leaves the body pretty-much entirely intact, allowing for medical use of the corpse or, at least, a dignified burial.

 

[Valjean]

From what I've read, lethal injection was introduced because it's actually less painful and more reliable than other methods of execution, such as hanging and electrocution. Importantly, it also leaves the body pretty-much entirely intact, allowing for medical use of the corpse or, at least, a dignified burial.

The legal and procedural rigmarole surrounding execution just serves to insulate those responsible from the clear responsibility for the act. The more turns and switchbacks in the process the more obscure the link between the act and actor.

If we were comfortable with the sentence, the judge could just order the court clerk to escort the criminal to the alley behind the courthouse, shoot him, and heave him into the dumpster/skip.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The legal and procedural rigmarole surrounding execution just serves to insulate those responsible from the clear responsibility for the act. The more turns and switchbacks in the process the more obscure the link between the act and actor.

If we were comfortable with the sentence, the judge could just order the court clerk to escort the criminal to the alley behind the courthouse, shoot him, and heave him into the dumpster/skip.

I suppose that may also be an element, I'm not really sure. Not a fan of the death penalty myself for pretty-much the same reasons you've outlined.

 

[Erebus]

The last question is why don't we let prisoners with a life sentences accept executions instead? I'd prefer an execution over life in prison i think. It seems like it'd be a great option to reduce the burden on the prison system and help inmates avoid a pointlessly long, painful, useless prison sentence.

There's a lot to cover in your post and most of it I just don't have very satisfactory answers to. This is something I wanted to address though because I've had similar thoughts.

In theory, I would be for the death penalty only in this situation. If somebody can't be reformed and released, then prison should serve to remove them from society. If the prisoner in question would prefer death, then that should be an option. That's the one and only situation in which I consider the death penalty justifiable.

In practice, I'm against the death penalty entirely, even the scenario I described. There are a few reasons for this:

1. I don't trust my government to responsibly use the power to take a person's life.

2. I don't trust the justice system to ensure that the only people facing a choice between life imprisonment and death are guilty.

3. I don't trust people in general to not find ways of pushing particular prisoners towards choosing death.

 

[Altfish]

I think the question that should be asked is, "Why is any country that considers itself to be advance or developed still carrying out this sort of punishment?"
Capital punishment should be consigned to the medieval scrap heap

 

[Brickjectivity]

I drive right past prisons and do not visit them. I wouldn't even know how, so for me to comment on this is a bit much. Obviously saying 'Prisons should improve' is too vague to have results. I don't view life imprisonment as much different from execution although it is different. I don't think prisons should make people worse, but they are places where we lock people up. I'd like to be helpful, but I have lots of other things to think about that I understand better and care more about. If I were in prison or if I expected to be in one I might look into it with more interest.

 

[Poisonshady313]

We shouldn't be doing capital punishment at all, imo. We are only one of forty countries in the entire world that does, and one of the only industrialized ones. It's not been shown to have any meaningful effect on crime via deterrence and executing innocent individuals still happens.

As I pointed out in the execution thread, the only reason that capital punishment can't be shown to have any meaningful effect on crime via deterrence is because statistically, we don't really have capital punishment in this country. The execution of it (pun intended) is so rare, nobody in any death penalty state besides Texas can reasonably expect to face death after committing murder. We can't really reliably measure whether or not it has a deterrent effect until we use it more consistently. Modern technology ought to make the process from conviction to execution more efficient. And, to your second point, modern technology ought to make it harder to convict innocent people... and failing that, modern technology ought to make it easier to exonerate wrongly convicted people.

That aside, just about every execution method has been botched before. Botched hangings produce a broken neck and severe spinal pain before severe asphyxiation pain. Botched shootings have blown people's faces off without killing them, or bullets have been caught in unexpected places in the skull without killing someone. Electric chair can be botched (and it isn't pretty). Anything that starts with anesthesia can be botched (which includes current lethal injection). An opiate overdose, for example, can cause violent gastric reactions which make you throw up endlessly and get tons of painful inflammation without killing you, or you could have semi-paralyzed breathing but the rest of you won't fall asleep and you feel like you're drowning. Even throwing someone off a really tall building can cause them to go into painful cardiac arrest before they hit the ground (and people have survived some pretty incredible falls). It always can be ugly. It always can be messy. It always can be cruel and unusual.

In my humble opinion, and please don't take this personally, that is a lame use of the concept of "cruel and unusual". If you've earned execution, nobody owes it to you to do it in a manner that is perfectly painless.

As far as I'm concerned, "cruel and unusual" means executing shoplifters and tax cheats. Which we don't do in this country.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As I pointed out in the execution thread, the only reason that capital punishment can't be shown to have any meaningful effect on crime via deterrence is because statistically, we don't really have capital punishment in this country. The execution of it (pun intended) is so rare, nobody in any death penalty state besides Texas can reasonably expect to face death after committing murder.

Only a third of executions this year was in Texas. While it had the highest rate, over the years the average is not that different from Alabama. Which tracks as state wide poverty and crime, as well as shoddy mental health care is higher there. Doesn't show evidence of capital punishment working better in Texas to reduce crime.

Modern technology ought to make the process from conviction to execution more efficient. And, to your second point, modern technology ought to make it harder to convict innocent people... and failing that, modern technology ought to make it easier to exonerate wrongly convicted people.

And yet, still happens. As much as 1 in 25 which is ridiculously huge.
One in 25 Sentenced to Death in the U.S. Is Innocent

As far as I'm concerned, "cruel and unusual" means executing shoplifters and tax cheats. Which we don't do in this country.

There have already been successful rulings against creating unnecessary suffering against death row inmates on the basis of the 8th ammendment. Ironically a recent one that forbids putting death row inmates in excessive solitary after it took an innocent Louisiana man being exonerated and taking his report to court before they went 'oh yeah, we probaly still need to treat death row inmates like ****ing people.'

 

[Poisonshady313]

Only a third of executions this year was in Texas.

Interesting fact: Texas is responsible for just over a third of all executions in this country since 1976.

While it had the highest rate, over the years the average is not that different from Alabama.

Since 1976,

Texas: 545
Alabama: 61

Which tracks as state wide poverty and crime, as well as shoddy mental health care is higher there. Doesn't show evidence of capital punishment working better in Texas to reduce crime.

Firstly, I wasn't suggesting that Texas was evidence of capital punishment working better to reduce crime. I'm just saying in a general sense, if a person commits first degree murder anywhere in this country, only in Texas could you reasonably think "oh, there's a good chance that guy might get the needle."

There are far too many variables and not enough capital punishment to make a useful determination about whether or not it could be a deterrent. In fact, Texas makes my point for me... the state in which a murderer is most likely to be put to death doesn't use the death penalty enough to give it a chance to be a deterrent.

But on the other hand... without asserting that it is... it possibly could be. If you want to just believe that it's not possible, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But if you're going to assert that it's not possible, you better be able to back it up with evidence.

I'm just saying... we don't know in any given location in any period of time how much murder there is going to be. So we can't know if certain individual variables caused there to be less murder than there would be.

"On second thought, I won't go through with it because if I get caught and convicted, I might get the needle." How would you know if someone has never thought that?

And yet, still happens. As much as 1 in 25 which is ridiculously huge.
One in 25 Sentenced to Death in the U.S. Is Innocent

I have very little reason to believe that 59 of the 1465 executions since 1976 were errors.

One reason why is that the numbers don't correlate as nicely as you'd like them to. There are a lot fewer people who have been executed since 1976 than there have been on death row in that same time. We as a nation sentence a lot more people to death in any given year than we execute in that same year.

Also, twice the number of people who received exonerations were granted clemency. If any of those people were wrongly convicted yet not exonerated, the percentage of those wrongly executed goes down some more.

All that being said... most (if not all) of the claims of wrongful execution have been very controversial. It would be tough to convince me that the error in execution rate is even 1% (you'd have to prove 15 wrongful executions). If the success rate is upwards of 99%, and modern technology can serve to improve that number, it'll be harder and harder to use the "execution of innocents" as a reason to get rid of the death penalty.

There have already been successful rulings against creating unnecessary suffering against death row inmates on the basis of the 8th ammendment.

If you're talking about the treatment of inmates while they're on death row, we're not talking about the same thing.

I'm not terribly bothered by the idea that murderers suffer some degree of discomfort while we're injecting them with lethal chemicals. Challenging lethal injection protocols on the basis of the 8th amendment because this murderer twitched or that murderer convulsed or the other murderer gasped on the gurney is a waste of taxpayer time and money.

 

[Valjean]

I don't think most felons do a lot of risk-benefit analysis before committing their particular crimes. I think they're a pretty impulsive lot, so possible negative consequences down the line don't feature very prominently in their actions.
Even professionals tend to be gamblers. If you don't believe you'll be caught, penalties are irrelevant.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I don't think most felons do a lot of risk-benefit analysis before committing their particular crimes. I think they're a pretty impulsive lot, so possible negative consequences down the line don't feature very prominently in their actions.

Premeditation denotes a lack of impulsiveness.

 

[Valjean]

Which is why I included two, separate categories, both largely insensitive to penalties.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Which is why I included two, separate categories, both largely insensitive to penalties.

The impulsive lot aren't the lot committing the crimes that get people executed.

The professional lot, if they're actually getting paid, can afford to move to a state without a death penalty.