Posted on 01/03/2008 7:25:32 AM PST by Sopater
The Supreme Court will hear a case Monday that examines what is cruel and unusual punishment.
When a state panel recommended in April that Tennessee abandon the three chemicals used in executions across the nation in favor of the single drug usually used in animal euthanasia, the state's corrections commissioner said no.
Though the move would have simplified executions and eliminated the possibility of excruciating pain, the commissioner, George Little, said Tennessee should not be "out at the forefront" of a decision with "political ramifications."
Little's decision helps illuminate one of the questions lurking behind the year's most eagerly anticipated death penalty case: Why have states clung to an execution method with the potential to inflict intense pain when a simpler one is readily available?
When the Supreme Court hears arguments on Monday in Baze vs. Rees, the Kentucky case that has led to a de facto national moratorium on executions, it will mostly be concerned with the question of what standard must courts use to assess the constitutionality of execution methods under the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.
But beyond that is the more practical question of why all 36 states that use lethal injections to execute condemned inmates are wedded to a cumbersome combination of three chemicals.
The answer, experts say, seems to be that no state wants to make the first move. Having proceeded in lock step to adopt the current method, which was chosen in part because it differed from the one used on animals and masked the involuntary movements associated with death, state governments would prefer that someone else, possibly the courts, change the formula first.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Why indeed? A .45 to the back of the head works every time without fail. Cheaper.
Pb
We could always go back to hanging in the public square....we all know the founding fathers didn’t find that to be cruel and unusual. Hopefully the relatively “new” Supreme Court will do away with much of the Brandies mandated “balancing” tests relating to the death penalty, the Establishment Clause, the Freedom of Religion Clause, etc. I doubt it; but hey why not dream :D
It doesn’t matter how they die, the real penalty is the wait. If we wanted to be humane we’d drug their dinner one random night and kill them in their sleep.
Weird just watched this on Law & Order last night about a women using the same chemicals on a right to die case. The lady involved in the right to die opposed the death penalty but still gave her sucidial patients the chemicals anyways.
I have had general anesthesia several times. Painless - I just went to sleep - use those drugs to get the perp sedated and unconscious, then use the deadly stuff. No pain, no fuss, no problem.
I saw that episode. I gotta say I really miss the guy who played Adam being DA or Fred Thompson being DA. I liked it better when Sam Watterston’s character was being smacked about by the head guy in charge. haha.
BTW did you hear the snide little throw-off on Fred? “This office isn’t a showroom anymore it’s a work room.” I by no means am an avid “Fred-head” but that comment just got under my skin.
It reminded me why I quit Law and Order after Jerry Orbach (I know I misspelled it :( ) left, and then passed away. I hate the Jack McCoy character, and ugh it’s awful now he’s the DA!
The one time I have witnessed the euthanasia of an older pet, the process was extremely rapid and I do not believe the animal could have felt any pain. I don’t understand why three chemicals are needed for human executions.
Try lead poisoning.
Why not bring back the gas chamber and fill it with nitrogen? The perp would black out in seconds and check out 7 minutes later.
yes and its very handy in the kitchen too
It slices, it dices!
Why use 3 chemicals when you can use 1 bullet.
1) ... So the pharmaceutical companies will make a profit.
2) ... Rope made in China has too much lead.
3) ... Shooting them increases their carbon footprint.
4) ... One may not be enough, and four may be too much.
5) ... So they won't know which one will kill them.
6) ... George Bush.
7) ... To keep Huckabee from pardoning them.
8) ... They have a ten year supply of chemicals left.
9) ... The executioners are afraid of electricity.
10) ... To see if the coroner knows his suff.
If they give up on the current method without being forced to, something will be wrong with the replacement and they will be forced to give it up, ad infinitum.
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.