|
April 17, 2008
is it safe?
WARNING: Gruesome discussion follows. At least, I guess discussions of how to kill people are gruesome to some people. I suspect that that a few readers, though, might come here because of occasional discussions of gruesome things. (In fact, a commenter to my previous post on lethal injection mentioned the "Classical Values Torture poll.") The Supreme Court just ruled 7-2 that lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment, notwithstanding the risk that the procedure (known as "protocols") might not be carried out correctly. That the prisoner might suffer is considered part of the punishment. What that means is that for now, the death penalty remains. That's a good result for people (including myself) who support the death penalty, but I don't think it will stop the endless bickering over whether the procedure is humane. There will continue to be problems, and I think that's because the statutes require "intravenous injection" of certain fatal drugs, but the laws do not contemplate the difficulty of finding a vein and establishing and maintaining a good rate of flow. (Kentucky law in question calls for "continuous intravenous injection of a substance or combination of substances sufficient to cause death.") I found the legal links at Ann Althouse's discussion of the case, and I notice that her very first commenter proposes Nitrogen asphyxiation as a form of humane death. For that matter, the same nitrous oxide ("laughing gas") that dentists use is inert, inexpensive, and (unlike some of the explosive gases used by anesthetists) quite safe to administer. Lots of stupid people have accidentally killed themselves getting high with the stuff; why not use it deliberately? If the goal is humane elimination of human life, I'd say it's another good idea. Another commenter pointed out that vets use Pentathol only: Vets use only one chemical ; it seems peaceful enough.As I pointed out in the earlier post, my vet sedates animals before the IV Pentathol shot. I realize that Justice Roberts rejected veterinary practice as "not an appropriate guide to humane practices for humans," but my argument was along commonsense lines. There is absolutely no reason why putting a man to death should be any more complicated than putting a dog to death. Considering ubiquitously available technology, there is no logical reason why there need be any infliction of pain. I think there's an unacknowledged desire in some quarters among death penalty proponents to do more than merely cause the condemned person to die, and it may be rooted in the desire to inflict further punishment. The idea of humane death being rendered inhumane because of human incompetence never should have become an issue in the first place. Don't get me started on how or why the government is incapable of doing what even the most mediocre veterinary assistant could do; I wrote a post, and people seem to have missed my point, which is that capital punishment can be made less vulnerable to these endless legal challenges by making it absolutely painless. These gruesome torture rape murders in Tennessee (which I posted about extensively and about which Glenn Reynolds posted the update about last week) are a perfect example of why the death penalty ought to be rendered legally unassailable in that regard. Tennessee's legal wranglings over the procedure are so typical, yet so unnecessary. I want awful people like that dead; I don't want lawyers supplied with a single legitimate argument about why the lethal injections might be botched and might cause pain when that can be avoided entirely. Any vet tech can kill these people painlessly, quickly, and efficiently. The law should not require "intravenous injection" from start to finish; a simple initial injection of a sedative (or admininstration of nitrous oxide gas) to the point of unconsciousness, to be followed by the IV infusion of a massive dose of Pentathol would be fine, and completely painless. If the goal is to humanely get them off the earth, why not use the most efficient and humane means to that end? posted by Eric on 04.17.08 at 06:11 PM
Comments
That's traditionally for soldiers. (or rebels), not criminals, although I seem to remember that Utah used it. While not against the death penalty in principle, I am uncomfortable in its uneven application--and how innocent people keep getting exonerated off death row. If the process is that screwed up then some things need to be rethought. Eric Blair · April 17, 2008 09:43 PM i think you are confused about Nitrogen asphixiation. Nitrous Oxide is a completely different gas than pure Nitrogen. basically Nitrogen asphixiation is death by removing the oxygen from the air the person breathes, leaving only the 78% of the air that is Nitrogen. Sean · April 17, 2008 10:09 PM No, I realize these are different. Nitrous oxide is used as an anesthetic, though, and can easily be used to kill someone humanely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide While nitrous oxide is not a dangerous substance per se, recreational users typically do not mix it with air or oxygen (a 70/30 mix of nitrous oxide and oxygen, respectively (which is the same amount of oxygen in normal air) is standard procedure in a dentist's office) and thus may risk injury, or in worst case: death, from lack of oxygen (anoxia). Nitrous oxide, when inhaled using a home made system consisting of a mask and/or regulator, presents the highest potential danger due to the automatic, continuous application. Eric Scheie · April 17, 2008 10:45 PM As a nurse, I believe the current injection protocol of the 3-med "cocktail" is humane. After a hearty last meal, finding a vein strong enough to withstand the dose should be a piece of cake. The two meds initially administered are a pain reliever, and a med that renders the receiver unconscious. This makes the chemical overdose of Potassium (which is the lethal drug injected) pain-free. I am pro-death penalty, and I cannot think of a more humane way to carry out the law. Count Vlad · April 18, 2008 03:46 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2008
March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
How far off base can the "base" get?
Ecumenism Who Will Stand With Us? Moral relativism? How many clues do the clueless need? is it safe? End women's suffrage, Part II (End the Curse!) Obamadee and Hillarydum agreed to have a battle... NO MORE BITTER BLUES? Two Losers
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Whatever happened to death by firing squad? A blindfold, a cigarette and a quick death.
That's way I'd want to go out... ;-)