[9YearLurker]

The patient died, but the execution was not a success. Yes, he was killed, but we don’t allow cruel and unusual punishment, such as torture by painful death.

That’s what they all mean with the term ‘botched’—and it’s really hard to argue that.

[demshateGod]

Cruel and unusual would be burying the criminal alive after shooting them a few times with a shotgun.

[ripley]

“That’s what they all mean with the term ‘botched’-and it’s really hard to argue that.”

It’s also hard to argue with the fact that the execution was successful.

IMHO

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

The intention of the execution was not to be cruel and unusual, but since this means of execution is apparently not foolproof, then suffering may have occurred. I will respect what the law intends, but this devil will get no sympathy from me. If we want to reduce “botched” executions, then we should adopt some of the author’s suggestions of more sure-fire methods.

[FamiliarFace]

***Yes, he was killed, but we don’t allow cruel and unusual punishment, such as torture by painful death.***

Whenever I hear anyone talk about us not allowing cruel and unusual punishment, and torture by a painful death, I am reminded of the grisly ways the victims of these murderers were treated, as well as death by starvation and dehydration (no food or water until death is achieved) as we as a nation did to Terri Schiavo. She was not convicted of any crime, yet her death was barbaric. So I disagree that we don’t allow cruel and unusual punishment. We do. At least we have...and to innocent people never charged with any crime.

[Svartalfiar]

Yes, he was killed, but we don’t allow cruel and unusual punishment, such as torture by painful death.

Unusual is using a bunch of expensive drugs when there's many cheaper, easier options.

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) ... In this way the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual [,if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty."

If they just hit him with some birdshot, then buried him alive: definitely the same severity as the crime, not arbitrary - fits the crime, equally just as the crime itself, and definitely more effective than not killing him. I guess the only way you could argue this is that it's not more effective than just Nitrogen-ing him to death, which would be less severe of a punishment. A less effective deterrence though.