×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Controversial Execution In Ohio Uses New Lethal Drug Combination

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the let's-argue-about-killing-people dept.

Crime 1038

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "CNN reports that Ohio inmate Dennis McGuire appeared to gasp and convulse for roughly 10 minutes before he finally died during his execution by lethal injection using a new combination of drugs. The new drugs were used because European-based manufacturers banned U.S. prisons from using their drugs in executions — among them, Danish-based Lundbeck, which manufactures pentobarbital. The state used a combination of the drugs midazolam, a sedative, and the painkiller hydromorphone, the state corrections department told CNN. In an opinion piece written for CNN earlier this week, a law professor noted that McGuire's attorneys argued he would 'suffocate to death in agony and terror.' 'The state disagrees. But the truth is that no one knows exactly how McGuire will die, how long it will take or what he will experience in the process,' wrote Elisabeth A. Semel, clinic professor of law and director of the Death Penalty Clinic at U.C. Berkeley School of Law. According to a pool report from journalists who witnessed the execution, the whole process took more than 15 minutes, during which McGuire made 'several loud snorting or snoring sounds.' Allen Bohnert, a public defender who lead McGuire's appeal to stop his execution in federal court on the grounds that the drugs would cause undue agony and terror, called the execution process a 'failed experiment' and said his office will look into what happened. 'The people of the state of Ohio should be appalled by what took place here today in their name.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (4, Insightful)

stox (131684) | about a year ago | (#45991475)

I don't know what is then.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (2, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45991507)

The phrasing in the 8th amendment is "cruel and unusual" FYI, and I'm pretty sure a court will find a stay of executions necessary until a new method is devised.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991527)

Maybe it was the pregnant women that he slit her throat and left lying along the road was !

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991567)

Maybe it was the pregnant women that he slit her throat and left lying along the road was !

This.

I don't feel bad for him at all. I certainly hope he felt some (or more) of what his victim felt.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991615)

An eye for an eye, and the whole world is blind.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991799)

An eye for an eye, and the whole world is blind.

Sorry, but Oprah was all out of new cars to give him and the fine folks over at Publisher's Clearing House couldn't fill up enough balloons to lift the check they had for him so they opted for the death penalty.

Let's not pretend that this man didn't understand or even endorse the death penalty. He certainly presided over at least one execution of his own. But I doubt it was his first as his kind isn't usually caught the first time. I'm sure there were other people and animals that he practiced on until he graduated to a defenseless pregnant woman.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991869)

I see you missed the point. Lets see, I think there are a few more quotes that come to mind:

Let he is without sin cast the first stone.
Judge not, lest you be judged.
Thou shalt not kill.

I think that last one is quite important. One that you're really supposed to abide by. A commandment, if you will. I don't recall any exceptions for "Oh but if the other guy killed someone else that's O.K, you know? Go wild." Maybe that was in the apocrypha?

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (5, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#45991711)

false equivilancy. This man might be a monster, but we are not. We are civilized. We are not going to torture people out of revenge or for any other reason.

The purpose of criminal justice is to keep bad people from harming society. Not to make us feel better, with some feel good violence or torture.

Please keep your biblical eye for and eye type mentality out of my country. Or go move to some country like saudia arabia

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (1, Insightful)

Libertarian001 (453712) | about a year ago | (#45991833)

You were relevant right until you decided to bring religion into it.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991863)

false equivilancy. This man might be a monster, but we are not. We are civilized. We are not going to torture people out of revenge or for any other reason

I think you give people too much credit, "civilized" human beings are notorious for the amount of brutality and pain they are willing to inflict on another person in the name of "justice".

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (4, Informative)

Whorhay (1319089) | about a year ago | (#45991875)

Purpose of the Criminal Justice System (in theory):

Also to hopefully reform criminals so that they can rejoin society as productive individuals.

Also remember that biblically speaking an eye for an eye is given as a limiting example. That is to say that the punishment may not be any more severe at it's worst than the crime that was commited, and a lesser punishment should be used in most cases.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991809)

And when you are ready to inflict the same, you become just as bad as he was.

doesn't really sound like "cruel and unusual, (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991539)

'several loud snorting or snoring sounds' doesn't really sound like "cruel and unusual," sorry.

Compared to what he did, I'm not terribly sorry for him. A few minutes of "snorting or snoring" (during most of which he was probably not fully conscious) doesn't seem like a big deal.

The official 15 minutes to die (3, Insightful)

goldcd (587052) | about a year ago | (#45991897)

later adjusted to 25 after the observers called bullshit...
*personally* I'm against the death penalty, but if you're going to do it, just make yourself a Guillotine. "Lethal injection" is quite distasteful as it dresses up a killing as some pseudo-medical procedure. Scewing this up quite so magnificently is just jaw-dropping - although I suspect you don't send your brightest off to work in the penal system.
What really shocks me though is the response of a significant number of people here, that the suffering he endured was justified as it was 'deserved'. I've tried in vain to think of how to get my point across, but can't think of any common ground to even start my pitch that the deliberate infliction of suffering upon another is simply wrong.
I'm a great big atheist - but generally feel I've got a lot in common with those of faith, at least in my views if not the underlying reason. My biblical knowledge is rusty to say the least, but I'm reasonably sure when Jesus killed sinners, he at least did it mercifully.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (4, Interesting)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about a year ago | (#45991629)

Why not simply shoot them? I'm staunchly against the death penalty myself, but if you must do it then at least make it quick.

Of course, putting a bullet in someone's head might make the people invited to watch the event just a tad squeamish...

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (1)

jordanjay29 (1298951) | about a year ago | (#45991717)

Something tells me that the inmate gasping and convulsing doesn't exactly make for an easy scene to watch, either.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991735)

Of course, putting a bullet in someone's head might make the people invited to watch the event just a tad squeamish...

That says to me we should get the people more involved in the event. So, give them each a baseball bat and have them just bludgeon the guy to death. It's more economical, too, since the bats can be reused for the next guy! I can't possibly see any way in which this idea could ever go wrong.

NOTE TO THE CLUELESS: THIS POST WAS SARCASTIC.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#45991749)

I am all for this. Shooting, specificly with a high calibre weapon is most likely the most humane way to kill someone. Unlike the firing squads of yore, the rifle is attached to a fixed bench, with a fixed aim point, and the victim is dead before he hits the floor.

But yeah, its messy, and not politically correct enought. Instead we let people squirm around taking 20+ min to die.

Then we have the entire contracition of using medicine to harm. This by itself is rather disgusting on its own

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (5, Insightful)

Razed By TV (730353) | about a year ago | (#45991821)

Suffocation through nitrogen is the answer. The body doesn't build up CO2 (which is the cause of unpleasantness when holding ones breath). Pain free execution.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#45991755)

The standard is NOT "cruel and unreasonable". The standard is "cruel and unusual".

Given the rarity of executions, it can be argued that all of them are "unusual".

On the other hand, "unusual" in this context (at the time the phrase was originally used) means "not usual" - so if you normally hang people, beheading them would be "unusual", but hanging, even if done once every decade would not be "unusual".

My personal take on it is that there's no point in executions given the years/decades it takes to work all the required appeals through the system, so they should just stop doing them.

Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991827)

The EU can be proud - their drugs weren't used in the execution of Dennis McGuire, and therefore, he died a more painful death than he otherwise would have.

Hmm (1, Insightful)

roninmagus (721889) | about a year ago | (#45991477)

Let's ask Joy Stewart what she thinks about the undue agony and terror. Oh, she and her unborn child are both unavailable for comment.

Re:Hmm (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#45991503)

And her opinion on the 8th amendment matters why exactly? (yes, yes, I know that invoking the victim, and her precious fetus too, I see, is fashionable; but it's kind of a lousy substitute for thinking).

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991589)

yes, yes, I know that invoking the victim, and her precious fetus too, I see, is fashionable; but it's kind of a lousy substitute for thinking

Your compassion and empathy for Dennis McGuire is overwhelming.

Re:Hmm (1)

buswolley (591500) | about a year ago | (#45991637)

Thank you. The guy was more than a dick, but we are supposed to be a humane society.

Re:Hmm (1, Insightful)

OhPlz (168413) | about a year ago | (#45991725)

We're more humane now that he's gone.

Re:Hmm (0, Flamebait)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about a year ago | (#45991509)

If the victim's family demand that the person who was convicted of the killing be publicly flogged and crucified, do we grant that wish?

You fucking barbarians make me sick.

Re:Hmm (1)

YumoolaJohn (3478173) | about a year ago | (#45991829)

Anything the victim's family says is automatically 100% correct, so yes. If something like this didn't happen to you, then by way of bullshit logic, your arguments are incorrect.

Re:Hmm (-1, Flamebait)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#45991865)

It ain't just about the victim's family, asshole - it's so that he can never do the same crime again, and we don't have to bear the cost of his remaining days.

Re:Hmm (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45991523)

I forgot how important it is to get a second wrong to match with the first one. It's like Go Fish, if you get related pairs, they both go away, right?

Re:Hmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991737)

Oh yes, it's much better to put the vicious murderer in prison for 60 years or so, at $75,000+ a year.

Or better yet, give in to your liberal heart and let him loose. If he goes out and kills again, we can just release him again.

THAT will teach him!

Putting down a rabid dog prevents said dog from biting again. The problem is, we simply do not put ENOUGH rabid dogs down.

Re:Hmm (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45991769)

Yep, not a human being. Nope, a dog, because you say so.

Re:Hmm (1)

YumoolaJohn (3478173) | about a year ago | (#45991785)

Oh yes, it's much better to put the vicious murderer in prison for 60 years or so, at $75,000+ a year.

Yes.

Re:Hmm (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991859)

Oh yes, it's much better to put the vicious murderer in prison for 60 years or so, at $75,000+ a year.

Considering the whole appeals process ends up costing more than life in prison, yes, that would be better.

Re:Hmm (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#45991861)

Life is still cheaper than death. All the appeals and such make a death sentence more expensive than life, and both have the same result.

Re:Hmm (5, Insightful)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about a year ago | (#45991541)

There's a reason that independent third parties adjudicate trials and not friends and family of the victim and accused.

Re:Hmm (1)

Zantac69 (1331461) | about a year ago | (#45991605)

Invoking the victim in the crime? Completely irrelevant.

As for any suffering by McGuire - fuck the fucking fucker. 10 minutes of discomfort (that we dont even know he had) is childsplay to the hell (if there is one) he is being spit roasted in and the pain and suffering that he inflicted on the victim and her family.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991627)

Let's ask Joy Stewart what she thinks about the undue agony and terror. Oh, she and her unborn child are both unavailable for comment.

Isn't this logical fallacy called, an appeal to emotion?

Re:Hmm (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#45991767)

if you like your biblical justice so much, go move to saudi arabia

Good old morphine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991479)

High dose, slowly dowsing away, eternal bliss...

Re:Good old morphine? (5, Informative)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#45991733)

Screw morphine. I've wondered why we don't just use nitrogen to suffocate them. There is no suffocation reflex, because the body's suffocation reflex is based on overabundance of CO2, not underabundance of O2. It's completely painless - they pass out within a minute and never wake up. In the oil and shipping industries we have "Nitrogen: The Silent Killer" posters plastered everywhere in enclosed at-risk spaces. I never understood why we deal with expensive drug cocktails when we have tanks of simple N2 ready to be used.

Re:Good old morphine? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991841)

We can just add this to the LONG list of retarded illogical things that we do as a society. Makes no sense to me either...

How about we save executions... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45991481)

How about we save executions for only people who break laws and participated in enforcing or making laws.

Re:How about we save executions... (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about a year ago | (#45991513)

Because that would be unconstitutional. You can't modify the punishments for a crime depending on the person's job.

Re:How about we save executions... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45991545)

So, you can be punished for short-selling stocks like I can?

Re:How about we save executions... (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#45991855)

Of course you can. Someone's job and expert knowledge has bearing on wether or not their actions may rise to the level of negligence, for example. Many laws apply only to certain classes of people in certain professions; only certain people may be guilty of public corruption, for example-- a private citizen who takes a bribe or kickback as a part of their job generally isn't criminally liable. People employed as soldiers and sailors are subject to a completely separate legal system, with its own laws, punishments, legal proceedings...

Re:How about we save executions... (1)

Golddess (1361003) | about a year ago | (#45991743)

How about we save executions for only people who break laws and participated in enforcing or making laws.

Er, what? Is that "for people who break laws, and for people who participated in enforcing or making laws", or is that "for enforcers/makers of laws who also break the law"?

Re:How about we save executions... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45991787)

The latter, naturally. The former wouldn't make much sense, would it?

Stand by ... (-1, Troll)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about a year ago | (#45991489)

... for the torture fetishist psychos to bombard this conversation, fantasizing about torturing someone to death in 5-4-3-2-1.

Congratulations, America. You're up there with Saudi Arabia and Iran in how the rest of the world views your claims to be a "civilized" country.

Re:Stand by ... (-1, Troll)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about a year ago | (#45991535)

As soon as we care what you think, you will be notified.

Re:Stand by ... (0)

Kielistic (1273232) | about a year ago | (#45991665)

Was that a notification?

Re:Stand by ... (1)

Zantac69 (1331461) | about a year ago | (#45991719)

I think it was a notification of opinion dismissal only - clearly not a notification of opinion importance and/or acknowledgement.

Re:Stand by ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991705)

So you've just admitted to being a torture fetishist. Congratulations. What does it feel like to be a psychopath?

Re:Stand by ... (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#45991803)

why dont they go back to shooting range or beheading? honestly, a shot in the head. it's been shown that a bullet tears through the brain far faster than any signal of pain from the neurons. I know about these things.

Re:Stand by ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991741)

European-based manufacturers are responsible for this mans torture when they banned U.S. prisons from using their drugs in executions.

Re:Stand by ... (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#45991763)

5-4-3-2-1.

Barely made it to 3.

Re:Stand by ... (1)

zeroryoko1974 (2634611) | about a year ago | (#45991847)

Yes, we value criminal lives far more then innocents, just like Muslim countries

what i've always wondered, as a non-medical person (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991521)

So ignoring for a minute all the ethical questions etc, just thinking about the process. I do not have medical training, but I have always wondered why they can't just use the drugs used for general anesthetic in general surgeries? Put someone under with those, then you can stop their heart painlessly when they're unconscious. Certainly there is a large supply of those drugs around.

Hasn't this been a solved problem for a hundred years or so?

Re:what i've always wondered, as a non-medical per (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#45991703)

That puzzles me too. I'm told that in general anesthesia, they have to monitor your signs very closely, because there's quite a narrow band between not enough anesthetic and too much...seems that a little twist on the valve would accomplish the objective.

Given that, I have to doubt the motivation.

Re:what i've always wondered, as a non-medical per (1)

Golddess (1361003) | about a year ago | (#45991775)

I guess it depends on whether the European companies consider that the same as "using the drugs to kill", and forbid exports.

Re:what i've always wondered, as a non-medical per (1)

Whorhay (1319089) | about a year ago | (#45991779)

If I am not mistaken that is generally what has been done for a long time. Most of those drugs though are imported from other countries, typically in the EU. The EU just recently passed a law forbidding export of those drugs if they will be used for the purpose of killing people. Which is the whole reason that they tried this new drug mix in Ohio.

What amazes me is why they don't just use a massive heroin overdose or something like that. I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of that stuff locally whether or not other countries decide not to import it.

Re:what i've always wondered, as a non-medical per (5, Insightful)

Swarley (1795754) | about a year ago | (#45991895)

Exactly this. I'm only a second year med student and even I could tell you that trying to kill someone with the mixture of drugs in the summary would be a really ugly process. I'm pretty sure we can't use propofol for the same reason we can't use the pentobarbital mentioned in the summary, but honestly a regular dose of propofol to knock someone unconscious plus a pneumatic piston like we use to humanely kill food animals would be the obvious option. Sure it makes a bigger mess, but it's WAY more humane for the person being executed, the one who were trying to protect from unnecessary cruelty and suffering. Propofol plus guillotine works well too. As it turns out medical science knows a lot more about reliably making people unconscious with drugs than about reliably killing them with drugs. Given that, if the killing is to happen, it should be done with something we know works reliably and quickly.

B-o-o H-o-o (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991525)

Good riddance to bad rubbish. If he was the slightest bit uncomfortable as it went down, hopefully that won't keep the moonbats up all night with their hearts bleeding for him...

Re:B-o-o H-o-o (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#45991791)

moonbats?

Outlawing unusual punishment . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991531)

Was a major mistake. Punishments work best when they are unusual.

Cruel . . . . I dunno. Slippery slope.

But, hey, we could just bring back the guillotine!

QA (5, Insightful)

timdingo (1922214) | about a year ago | (#45991547)

I guess I should be appalled, but.. the dude slaughtered a pregnant girl; I don't care how he died exactly at all. In fact, I'm going to consider this a successful QA test and move on.

Re:QA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991609)

I share your feelings, but it would seem more justified if applied to a sentence for a crime that took place more recently than 20 years ago. 20 years is a long time to wait between verdict and sentence :\

Re:QA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991759)

Read a bit [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
While 240 months is probably above the average wait time, the average wait time as of 2010 was 178 months. Just under 15 years. There are various reasons for the excessive delays, some good (using modern science to disprove lie-witness accounts), some less defensible, but the annoying fact is that just because there is a right to a speedy trial does not mean there is any legal insistence on a speedy application of the sentence.

It's worth noting (2, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#45991553)

...that his end was still less unpleasant than his victim's.

Re:It's worth noting (5, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | about a year ago | (#45991697)

But more unpleasant than I'd expect a civilized society to behave. There's a reason people have generally looked up to the US. This sort of thing is not exactly America's proudest achievement, and history will not look kindly upon the quantity and manner of execution.

There's something about Ohio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991565)

Amusing search [google.com]

What's wrong with a firing squad? (3, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#45991571)

If we want the death penalty to be a deterrent against crime, potential criminals should have to face a death that's scary, and not expect a painless injection that lets them quietly pass away.

Though I question the value of any death penalty as a deterrent since it's so rarely applied and the criminal either thinks he's going to get away with it or isn't worried about the consequences no matter what the consequences are -- 5 years in prison and then death might be even more attractive to some than a lifetime in prison.

Re:What's wrong with a firing squad? (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about a year ago | (#45991695)

Actually, done right, firing squad is probably quite painless for the executed. A couple shots to the head, and I'm pretty sure the prisoner won't be feeling anything any longer. Hell, they won't even have time to hear the shot from the gun.

It's messy, sure, but it's largely painless done right.

How hard can it be? (3, Informative)

crow (16139) | about a year ago | (#45991579)

How hard can it be to do this? Start with standard general anesthesia. One the person is out, then administer cyanide or whatever.

Or use the same thing we use for animals.

Or look at how they do assisted suicide. There are plenty of solutions there.

Re:How hard can it be? (1)

E++99 (880734) | about a year ago | (#45991739)

This. Or just slowly crank up the morphine until he stops breathing. I don't understand why this is a problem.

Why fool with drugs? (2)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about a year ago | (#45991585)

Just use a high powered rifle and turn his skull into pink mist. It's not cruel, death is instantaneous, and it only costs a dollar. Less if you use surplus ammo.

Bullets are cheap (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991587)

$0.34/round for quality stuff.

Generally instant and humane death is achievable with the first shot when your target isn't moving but if not, it's easy enough to use a 2nd or even 3rd round.

best solution here: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991591)

9 grams of lead, administered into the brain stem

Easier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991625)

Put a blood pressure monitor around his neck.

Why not use bullets? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991633)

Cheap and effective.

Why not gas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991639)

Honest question, why haven't we moved to an appropriate inert gas (like nitrogen) yet? What are the downsides?

Why is this an issue? (2)

mjperson (160131) | about a year ago | (#45991645)

We have complete understanding of how to knock someone so far out that you can cut into them for hours in an operating room, even to the point of removing their heart for a transplant. Why the heck to people have to go from fully conscious to dead in a single shot? Knock them out completely painlessly, and then kill them while they can feel nothing. I've never understood lethal injections at all!

Re:Why is this an issue? (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about a year ago | (#45991777)

Knock them out completely painlessly, and then kill them while they can feel nothing.

Sounds like Surgeon Simulator to me!

You want to know why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991857)

No doctor or nurse is going to administer the drugs to execute someone. They need a plug-n-play option that is simple enough for any Corrections Official can operate.

As others have mentioned, some of the methods Dr. Kevorkian developed would probably be acceptable, however the necessary components might be facing the same shortfalls in supply or controls as our current regime.

Re:Why is this an issue? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#45991877)

Why the heck to people have to go from fully conscious to dead in a single shot? Knock them out completely painlessly, and then kill them while they can feel nothing. I've never understood lethal injections at all!

Yes, it's obvious that you don't understand lethal injection.

Lethal injection is NOT a single shot. It's a series of shots, starting with a sedative to knock the victim out, followed up by lethal drugs. Under normal conditions, the victim doesn't feel a thing after the first needle.

Note that there is no evidence whatsoever that the victim felt a thing during this particular execution - him snoring/snorting a couple times after the sedative is administered isn't exactly rare (last time I was put out for a medical procedure, the nurse told me I snored the whole time till they stuck a tube down my throat).

Those Poor Darlings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991659)

Oh, those poor darlings! To have to pay for their horrendous, brutal crimes through a momentary discomfort!

Personally, I have no sympathy whatsoever for murderers and killers. If anyone wants to avoid such "anguish" then the remedy is extremely simple: DO NOT KILL, DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.

Re:Those Poor Darlings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991729)

DO NOT KILL, DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.

Unless you're a state actor. Then it's fine. Go wild. Apparently the bible is unclear on this.

Re:Those Poor Darlings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991879)

Well, you're certainly unclear anyway.

I'm sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991671)

that he when murdered his victim, he made sure it was as humane as possible right? Oh wait, no? Then he deserved what he got. And no I'm not counting the fetus, 'cause a fetus isn't a person.

Why not just Heroin OD? (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#45991681)

I don't get this. I hate capital punishment and would like to see it end. However, if we're going to do this and want to be as humane as possible (seems rather contradictory to me) why not give them something that many people voluntarily do because it's given to be so pleasurable? First, give them the regular does of heroin, then gradually move it up to OD. I've heard that heavy doses of the stuff cause you to "nod off". Then the OD just stops your breathing. What a way to go.

Really though, just stop CP. It's not befitting a modern country. It's irrevocable, and it puts too much power in the hands of the state.

Why are we testing drugs on humans? (4, Insightful)

guanxi (216397) | about a year ago | (#45991685)

I thought testing drugs on humans -- without their informed consent and successful prior testing -- was banned long ago.

It doesn't matter that the person is a prisoner; in fact the standards are higher for them, because they are much less able to refuse consent. It also doesn't matter that they will die soon; terminally ill patients also must give informed consent.

What kind of sick society experiments on helpless prisoners?

Re:Why are we testing drugs on humans? (1)

OhPlz (168413) | about a year ago | (#45991771)

What kind of sick society experiments on helpless prisoners?

Would you rather test an intentionally lethal drug cocktail on law abiding people?

Return the favor (0)

Archfeld (6757) | about a year ago | (#45991701)

The US should ban ALL imports from Danish companies, and add a huge tariff to any goods ending up there. Dictating what your customers do with the products they buy from you seems well, unenforceable and ignorant.

I don't get it either. (5, Insightful)

nblender (741424) | about a year ago | (#45991713)

Since innocent people end up on death-row and are frequently exonnerated by DNA or new evidence, then how can it be logical to maintain a death penalty? If you're going to say "well, maybe .1% of the time an innocent person is put to death but it's for the greater good", then how about you line up to be the next .1%?

Gandalf say, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991815)

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
  J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

Stupidity... (4, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#45991819)

I know I will be bombarded by right wing-nuts and tough love justice advocates (cold fjord are you here?), but does anyone not see the ridiculous hypocrisy of the death penalty?

You are not allowed to kill, but it okay for us to kill you.

I won't get into the fiscal debate as to whether it is cheaper to lock away someone for life or to execute with multiple appeals and proceedings. It shouldn't matter. If it is wrong to take a life, then it is wrong to take it in any circumstance. End of story. Then when you factor in the fact that we are constantly finding innocent people convicted (if not for death penalty offenses). Often due to poor representation, over zealous prosecutors, or shoddy politically or financially motivated police and forensic work, it would seem to me that the ethical cost of killing one innocent person would outweigh all of it. Even if our judicial system was perfect, humans make errors.

However, as with so much else in our society, our desire for vicarious retribution, our poor ability to truly judge relative risk, and the fear peddled by those in power to keep you caged keep winning.

We're doing this to ourselves (1)

alta (1263) | about a year ago | (#45991837)

I agree, THIS was cruel and unusual. There are many more common sense ways to get this done.

Use the drugs we use in surgery to put the guy out then in order of how I'd want to go...

Morphine OD
Heroine OD
Cyanide
Guillotine
Firing Squad
Electric Chair

Heck, with the first two we don't have to sedate first... We just sedate them to death.

Painless execution method .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991883)

Why not borrow some techniques from history as in, strap the subject down, administer an anestetic, tilt them down by the head and slit both carotid arteries, allow to drain and sentence is duely carried out.

Snoring sounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45991885)

Let's see...

1. Give convict anesthetic (you know, something that renders you unconscious)
2. Wait and listen to him snore
3. Proclaim that's he's in extreme pain (despite his being unconscious)

Personally, I'm against the death penalty as intellectually dishonest. But this whole debate here is a pile of manure.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?