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?

You need to learn the difference between an argument and an assertion or conclusion. Whether or not there's agreement or disagreement isn't really the point. The point is whether you have supported your assertions with facts and evidence that also support a conclusion. Failing to do so is "conclusory" which is mostly what you have offered. Conclusory statements are those consisting of conclusions or assertions for which no supporting facts or evidence is offered.

I have offered pretty strong arguments against things many take for granted and for things I'm not sure many have thought about. I have supported with evidence and facts why I view punishment, especially CP, as an unjust and invalid reason for imposing consequences and why protection, productive incarceration, reasonable restitution, and voluntary rehab are valid and necessary alternative reasons for imposing consequences.

Your responses, regardless of agreement, disagreement, or counter alternatives but in this case mostly disagreement, have basically consisted of flat assertions and flat conclusions. "You're wrong" isn't an argument, it is a conclusion. Have you refuted my reasoning or offered better evidence-based reasons to counter mine regarding any of my specific arguments? Do you simply reject out of hand everything I've raised? That's fine, but let's not pretend you've offered reasonable arguments in response. Have you offered your own alternatives with reasons supported by facts and examples?

I thought you were a willing and good-faith participant here, but you have yet to get into the game. To get into the game, you need to learn what are conclusory statements versus valid arguments supported by evidence-based reasoning.

I'm not saying this stuff to offend you. Everybody accepts the way things are early on. I'm still finding out things that I accepted when others have pointed out better alternatives for better reasons. That's not a bad thing that's a good thing.

The other issue I have here is although I feel like you came across like you genuinely wanted to understand what I was saying, it seems like that really wasn't the case. Anyway, as I've said, I hope you or others who might be following the thread will find something useful. Obviously, I think this is good stuff but I don't really care about being "right" for the sake of being right. If someone has a stronger argument with better fact-and-evidence-based reasoning, I'm all ears. The goal isn't to be "right." Our goal should be to find the truth because the truth sets us free.

You put up plenty of words but you have failed to make any point.

Well, again, you support your assertions with nothing just flat conclusory statements. Failing to convince you is not the same as failing to present an argument based on facts or evidence.

In a civil case, normally the one with the most evidence wins. Here, I've offered a tonnage of facts and examples compared to basically nothing but assertions from you. So on that objective basis I've won the argument regardless of whether you're subjectively convinced.

You also might want to ask yourself, what do you have to offer as alternatives. Many here are very good at shooting down ideas without offering alternatives or why the status quo should be maintained. Rarely is maintaining the status quo a stronger argument than improving things and usually shooting down suggested improvements without offering any of your own is not very helpful.

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.