Lethal Injection Is Pretty Much the Worst Way to Execute People. So Why Do We Use It?

This was made gruesomely apparent in Oklahoma last week, when the state tried to execute a convicted murderer named Clayton Lockett by injecting him with a new and secret mix of deadly chemicals. "Man," Lockett moaned, sixteen minutes after the injection and long after he was supposed to be dead, and he tried to get up, and began to writhe and jerk on the gurney until prison officials closed a curtain to keep the witnesses from seeing the rest of the episode. Alarm set in. The doctor on hand told state officials that Lockett had not received enough chemicals to kill him, but that there were no more chemicals on hand. There were debates over whether to take the prisoner to a hospital. Forty-three minutes after injection, Lockett had a massive heart attack (this was not part of the state's plan) and died.

Even under controlled circumstances like state executions — in which the executed has no freedom of movement, no ability to resist, in which the state is in complete control — human beings prove surprisingly resilient. Over the past century, 3 percent of hangings have been botched, and about 2 percent of electrocutions. More than 5 percent of gassings in state-operated gas chambers went awry. Lethal injections have become the most common mode of execution in the United States, but they are more error-prone still: 7 percent of them are botched. Which means that subsumed into the deep and difficult question of why we are executing prisoners at all is another question, more tangible but just as telling: Why are we killing them in the least effective way?

Having been an advanced EMT, I know first hand that starting and maintaining an IV can be difficult even under the best of circumstances. Adding to the difficulty is that many of the condemned have a history of IV drug use and the fear factor of your impending execution causing veins to constrict. I think the cruelest part of the procedure is the time it takes to start the IV...in some cases hours. The drug cocktails may also be problematic.

I know the intent is to make the process "clean" and clinical compared to sometimes gruesome methods like electrocution, gas chamber, firing squad and hanging, but lethal injection has its own problems like we saw in Oklahoma.

If we are to continue having capital punishment something simple and foolproof like nitrogen asphyxiation should be used. There would be no need to have a sealed gas chamber as with cyanide, just a well sealed room. Simply adding a sufficient quantity of liquid nitrogen to the room would quickly cause a displacement of the oxygen. Unconsciousness is rapid and without struggle and death is assured in a few minutes.

[ If we are to continue having capital punishment something simple and foolproof like nitrogen asphyxiation should be used. There would be no need to have a sealed gas chamber as with cyanide, just a well sealed room. Simply adding a sufficient quantity of liquid nitrogen to the room would quickly cause a displacement of the oxygen. Unconsciousness is rapid and without struggle and death is assured in a few minutes. ]

It could be simpler than that, gas mask with Nitrous Odixe, that you then konk them out with then replace with 100% argon or ntrogen and monitor their lifesigns until they flat line and leave the mask on for a good 5 mins after that...

this man who murdered a little girl should not face the consequences of his crime

Yes, there are consequences he should face, but consequences and punishment, especially capital punishment, are not necessarily the same thing.

Capital punishment is an unjust consequence as I've mentioned. Punishment is what we all feel should happen to a guy like that. It's natural and human. But natural and human doesn't make it righteous or just. Since some else has already borne all punishment for what this guy did, we must look somewhere other than "punishment" for just and moral purposes behind the consequences and responses for his heinous acts.

Restraint (incarceration) for the protection of society is a valid purpose and response. Society should be kept safe from dangerous criminals. That is a top priority of government. "Punishment" misses the mark because the only standard is whether he's "paid his debt to society" whatever that means. So, as we see today, the priority of parole policy focuses not on safety to society but on "doing his time."

What about restitution to the victims and families of the victims? Well, you can't undo a heinous act against someone else, especially a child. The answer and healing for the victims is never vengeance, it is only found in forgiveness. Studies and actual history has shown beyond much doubt, that vengeance feels good for awhile, but don't heal the pain. The only thing shown to truly heal victims so they can move on with their lives is forgiveness. So the state isn't doing the victims any favors by killing the perp for "just" revenge.

However, what about the perp? I think there should be some sort of restitution depending on the crime that may include monetary and possibly personal service-type restitution. "Punishment" misses the mark here too because in our current set-up, the actual victim isn't not even a party in the case and is generally ignored for anything except for evidence. It's "the state" vs. whoever and again, the only standard is whether he's "paid his debt to society" (the government), not to the victims. If the victims want compensation, they have to spend their own money and time to retry the whole thing in civil court. I believe this could and should be changed.

Prison should be a pay-as-you-go deal. The whole sentencing paradigm and prison system need to be brought out of the dark ages and into the light of today. Prisoners should be productive and prison should be a productive place where prisoners not only pay their way but reasonably repay what they've taken from their victims. Again, this is not on the "punishment" agenda which is why the purpose and use of prisons are still in the dark ages in many ways.

Voluntary, solid, and verifiable rehabilitation programs should be available also. Not on the "punishment" radar screen at all.

Again, "punishment" is first and foremost unjust and immoral because it is a form of double jeopardy. And when you kick the tires, you also see how much "punishment" falls short of effective, meaningful purposes for consequences.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.