[Robert Teesdale]

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

True. However, the point is also correct that cruel and unusual is Constitutionally prohibited, and (this is not aimed at you personally) there's zero difference to me between people here stating approval of unnecessary suffering in violation of that, and leftists advocating gun control and free speech prohibitions.

Bottom line, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" and you cannot make killing sanitary and "killingless".

Sedation is simple and easy. Why not simply over-sedate, then exsanguinate?

[ripley]

The attendant suffering of the “botched” execution was not intentional. There was a guilty verdict with a successful execution.

The victim of the crime was found arbitrarily guilty by the perpetrator and subjected to an intentional infliction of unspeakable pain and horror before dying.

Does one pay any particular attention to the cruel and unusual punishment meted out to an innocent victim or is the perpetrator paramount?

Just asking.