Lethal injection on trial
What happened:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday is hearing arguments in a death penalty case that could decide whether lethal injections used to execute criminals are constitutional, or cause unacceptable pain. (Reuters)
What the commentators said:
This case—Baze v. Rees—only challenges the lethal injection procedures in Kentucky, said Andrew Cohen in The Washington Post’s Bench Conference blog, but by extension it questions similar practices in 35 other states. Attorneys for Ralph Baze and Thomas Bowling—two convicted murderers—will “tell the justices that animals put to sleep in Kentucky are more closely monitored than the death-row inmates.”
Kentucky’s lawyers will argue that the state has already fixed problems that have led to botched injections, and that state courts have said its protocols were “good to go.”There are two problems with the state’s case, said The New York Times in an editorial (free registration). First, “the death penalty, no matter how it is administered, is unconstitutional and wrong.” Second, even those who believe that execution can be humane and constitutional can’t expect the rest of us to believe that Kentucky’s “‘cocktail’ of injected poisons” doesn’t “impose needless suffering.”
Death-penalty opponents "have tood reason to cheer," said Benjamin Wittes in The New Republic Online. Capital punishment is increasingly on the ropes -- New Jersey has even become the first state in the modern era to repeal it. But a decline in the murder rate -- not a shift in public opinion -- is behind the trend, so the best that activists can hope for is to "lock in systemic reforms" before the tide turns.
"The system for handling capital appeals is a good place to start, said Ronald M. George in the Los Angeles Times (free registration). It's “dysfunctional and needs reform.” In California alone, there are 650 inmates on death row, and “the backlog is growing.” One reform that could help is allowing the state Supreme Court to decide on death penalty appeals, instead of sending every case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
So, what do you think? Who makes the most compelling case here, the state or the inmates? Please explain your position.
41 comments:
Gillian Welch
3rd
I think that the death penalty completely goes against the Constitution and what we - as America - should stand for.
I know it gets oversaid...but also overlooked.
Although lethal injection may not be the most cruel and unusual form of punishment (as opposed to the electric chair and hanging), there is still something completely immoral with killing another person.
How ethical does that make the rest of America?
I'll probably never speak up or talk a lot in class, just so you know.
This is as talkative as I get. I do have a lot to say, though.
That's one reason why I have the blog. It gives everyone an opportunity to have a voice....
Hmmm....sweet equity!
Gillian you are right. The death penalty goes completely against the constitiution. Even they took another persons life doesn't mean their life has to be taken. Killing people is inhumane. We're not animals (technically we are but not the point). We're humans. We must never kill someone even if they are the worst human.
Sarah Lambert
Human Geography 4
9th grade
The constitutionality of the death penalty I'm unsure about but as for lethal injection violating the 8th amendment, there are some numbers to support the argument.
"cruel and unusual" is subjective, but toxicology reports from 4 selected states have shown that the thiopental (barbituate) level in the executed is lower than that required in surgery in 88% of the cases. 43% had concentrations consistent with awareness. Since the drugs are used to suppress the nervous system, then paralyze the person (except for the heart), then stop the heart, that means that the person cannot express pain even if they were conscious. That seems unsual/cruel.
The effectiveness of the death penalty is debatable. China likes it though, it holds 67% of the world's total of executions in its "strike hard against crime" campaign.
Carleen DeArmon, 3rd
© 1/7/2008
♥
I do disagree on many moralistic levels with the death penalty(why should humans play the role of God?, Who are we to judge if someone should live or die?, How do we know at times the convicted even committed the crime?, etc.), but I see the logical side to imposing capital punishment(They have commited numerous crimes and are dangers to themselves and others, people do not want to pay taxes just to hole someone up in prison for who knows how long when they could simply make the convicts start pushing daisies and be done with it, etc.)
It is clear to me, with regards to this argument, that there is no way to impose capital punishment without breaking the eighth amendment. That is, is there any way to kill someone that would not fit into someone else's definition of "cruel and unusual punishment?" That reason is grounds enough not to impose capital punishment, but everyone has a different definition of the word torture. Back when the founding fathers were writing and re-writing our constitution and Bill of Rights they might have never thought that hanging was a form of cruel and unusual punishment, but we do today!
Like Gillian, this blog is probably the most you will hear from me with regards to debate because I am extremely shy when it comes to debate. I don't like to feel foolish when it comes to things I think I know but might not know as much as I thought. As you learned last year, I do like to talk, but of late I'm not chattering as much. I'm trying, Mr. P!
I think that the death penalty should be put on the express lane.
If you murder someone and there are three or more eye witnesses, the death penalty should be automatic.
For other convicted murderer's though, I believe that in each situation there are different circumstances that require different sentencing which should range from twenty five years to life, or the death penalty.
The death penalty is not cruel and it is especially not unusual, there have been public executions since the beginning of humanity. Not only was Saddam Hussein recently executed, but it was posted on Youtube, uploaded from a cell phone, and there aren't too many of us contesting his execution.
I am not saying public executions should become a routine american headline, but the death penalty doesn't need to go anywhere. The death penalty show's that the criminal system will fight back, and it serves justice, not only to the family member's of their lost loved one, but also to the community. What if that death row inmate escapes?
I do believe that death row cases need to be reviewed extensively though to ensure the right person will be executed, verification through DNA if possible should be verification enough.
Enough said?
I think that the death penalty is a must. Is there any moral way to kill some one? I don’t think so. Yet if lethal injection is the final verdict, it was handed down for a good reason (most likely the convicted committed the crime of murder or something just as bad). U.S prisons are already full or filling and I believe that if you intentionally murder someone you forfeit your right to live.
It is simply unethical to take someones life for merely punishment. Not to mention that it cost millions of dollors a year for these executions to be carried out. I believe that the death penalty should be dismissed as a form of punishment, though it will be hard, considering that TX executed more inmates than anybody else.
Though I disagree with the death penalty, lethal injection is the only sound way to go about it. I don't think we can go back to hanging inmates or using the firing squad.
Alex Wheeler
2nd
yeah i agree that the death penalty is wrong but America is about equality, enough of this "separate but equal" junk, murderers have the same rights as puppies and should be put down in the same manner...
...but seriously the inmates do make the more compelling case, they may be convicted murderers but that doesn't mean we should inject them full of poisons and call it a day. honestly how is killing people going to teach people not to kill people???
Abigail Ham
9th grade
4th period
The death penalty is an interesting thing.
1)There are some crimes that cause victims of the crime so much pain that the only way to punish the criminal is to punish them the way they punished their victims. There are some cold-blooded criminals that deserve suffering. The offenders caused pain in another human being and expected to get away with it! A human life is a human life! That is undeniable, and when one who thinks that they are above the value of a human life to the point where they commit the sin of murder or breaking the law (which is also a sin according to the Bible and the law, of course), they give up their right to unalienable rights. What comes around goes around, even for those who don't care that they wounded more than just one person, but an entire family of blood relatives and friends. When they give up their unalienable right, they give up their right to be punished in a way that is constitutional.
2)On the other hand, the Bible also says revenge is a sin. Constitutional revenge in the form of lethal injection is a sin. Everyone deserves forgiveness, after all, we don't live in the Old Testament. And if you (not necessarily you, but you get what I mean.) don't believe in the Bible, then you might also argue that enough blood has already soiled the ground, why soil it any more than it is?
It depends on your background. If someone in your family had been brutally murdered, it is human nature to want the killer of your family to suffer tenfold of what you had suffered; wondering where this person is, if they're okay, if they're safe, if they're happy. The shock of learning someone is dead is pain enough, but upon the learning that some human, some measly human, killed them... that changes everything.
Revenge is wrong.
Murder is wrong.
But until humans grow a spine and stop killing each other like blood-thirsty animals, the death penalty should continue on in moderation, even in the most extreme cases.
I think we still have to keep it. When those inmates committed crimes, they deprived victims of their rights. They should get punishment for doing that.
I have a "solution" to it... How about letting those inmates choose which way(lethal injection, electric chair or hanging) they preferred to use to kill themselves?
OK...I know it's stupid, but for me, I couldn't think of another way to solve it(somehow it might not really solve the problem, but it could make it looks better). I know that no matter how, either one of them, the state or the inmates, is going to do some concesstion to the other.
--by Liulinbo Yang, 6th Period
P.S. I was surprised that blogger has Chinese version and shows me the Chinese version automatically. Now I can see that everything is in Chinese except Mr. P's articles and all the commets. Hahaha.
Lindsay Huffhines
2nd
The main reason we should abolish the death penalty is purely the cost. It costs more to kill someone on death row than pay for them to stay in prison. Instead of spending Americans' money (it is coming out of our taxes!) on killing criminals, it would be better to put it to use in our education system or something beneficial.
It is inhumane to kill someone painfully, but it's kind of inhumane to murder somone too...
I think the people who advocate the death penalty are just looking for some kind of retribution. But really, what could be a more horrible punishment than life in prison? You're stuck in there forever, eating crappy food, basically a slave. Possibly getting beat up every once in a while. Death would be a welcome relief after that!
For all the people who think the death penalty is a good punishment, try living in a dark cage the rest of your life.
There have been innocent people put to death, or were very close to it. There's always a chance, and it should be our duty to protect them to some extent. How horrible would it be to die for a crime you didn't commit?
Last of all, lethal injection isn't as simple and silent as it was made out to be in the past. Dogs aren't even subjected to it. So, while lethal injection may not be "ethical", it's also impractical.
Hannah Thornton
2nd period
I think the death penalty is unconstitutional and goes against everything that America stands for. Killing another human being is just plain wrong and immoral. Lethal injection may not be as cruel the electric chair but it is inhumane nonetheless. But vets quit admistering the "cocktail" used during lethal injection years ago because it was too cruel even for putting down dogs. This is a human life.
Anjalie Schlaeppi
6th
I would appologize for my spelling and my grammar, but I am an exchange student from Switzerland and, hum, english is not that easy...
I think that the death penalty is something that should exist but we can not use it! Let me explan, look what happens in certain contries of Africa, all the killing that some gangs, drug dealer do for money, all the raping in the refugees camp like in Darkfur, I mean, those people are doing horrible, immoral things, they do not longer deserve to live.
But, I think we should not use the death penalty because too much mistakes are made. And if you look at numbers, most of the people who are dead by death penalty are those with low income and who had a lawyer assign by the court because they could not pay one...
And the argument that it lowers the number of criminal act, well, look at Europe. They don't have death penalty and they have a very very low number of murder...
Ethan Aleman
2nd
I have to agree with the inmates. Killing a person does fall under the whole "cruel and unusual punishment" thing.
And wasn't this country built on christian principles?
The government must think "thou shall not kill" doens't apply to them.
Inmates are killed because they killed? That sounds a little hypocritical to me.
As long as you do not have personal experience with big issues like the death penalty it is easy to have an opinion. Yeh, it seems terrible to use a lethal injection.... until the crime was done to someone you knew or loved. It is all cruel on all sides. Without the death penalty we have to pay for more prisons.
Cameron Jones (3rd)
Ok, I think that both the state and the inmates have compelling cases. While I don't think that the needle is particularly cruel or unusual, I don't think that Kentucky should use a "cocktail of poisons". That is just asking for something to go wrong.
As for the death penalty in general, I think that it gets a little blown out of proportion; people do not the executed randomly! The death penalty should be used very rarely, but some criminals are incorrigible. Charles Manson is a totally crazed mass murderer, but he still comes up for parole.
Also, the death penalty could use some reform. I think that the average wait on death row is about 13 years. Here in good ol' Texas we hold the record for the shortest wait: 5 years. People should not have to suffer that long.
Kayleigh Robertson
6th
I believe that the death penalty does go against what America believes in and promotes, but America isn't a place where you can run free and kill people. I don't think that there should be a death row, I'm completley against killing people, no matter what their crime. Since there has to be one though, I don't think that lethal injection is a form of cruel and unusual punishment; but it's still wrong. We say that it's wrong to kill people, but here we are killing people... Makes no sense.
Sarah Rock
6th
Whether or not people think of lethal injection as cruel and unusual, it's morally wrong to kill another human being.
It might be painless, who will ever be able to tell?
The death penalty in general is completely unneccessary. Just throw them in jail for the rest of their life... the point is that no matter what somebody does, they shouldn't have to die for it.
Casey Farmer, 3rd Period
To a certain extent, I agree with Gillian about the immorality of capital punishment. But I think that I am leaning more to the side of the state, because I think that when you commit a crime of such incredible severity and end up on death row, you are also doing something completely against the constitution.
Also, if I understand it correctly, the issue isn't the death penalty, which has already been left up to the states. I think that with the amount of pain that these criminals have caused, they should deal with a little pain. Sorry if that's really bucolic.
and I'm not bashing your opinion, Gill...to an extent I agree with you. you should talk in class...
Gillian Welch
3rd
Kyle - there isn't any moral way to kill someone because [in my opinion], the whole idea is immoral.
If you're going to punish someone for killing...why go and do the same thing?
Sure, lethal injection is possibly less cruel than, say, the electric chair...but still.
How is it justified?
George Huang
6th Period (AP Government)
Although I do not support capital punishment, I acknowledge that Kentucky has made the decision to permit the death penalty and that Kentucky is not obligated to use the method of execution which causes the least amount of pain. The problem is that most people believe lethal injection is painless and therefore more humane than other methods such as electrocution, so it is generally more acceptable to the public. On that note, I think the state of Kentucky makes the stronger case here because it can demonstrate that the inmates’ arguments are irrelevant because the Constitution does not prohibit pain in execution. While I support the single dose of the barbiturate sodium thiopental because I prefer executions be painless, the state still has the power to choose which method it uses.
Anjelica Savedra
9th grade
4th period
I think death penalty goes completely aganist the Constitution. Lethal injection is not the cruel punishment for killing a other person. Its not like we are animals getting put to sleep and its wrong for a person to kill a other person. If you don;t like them then deal with it but don't kill them. Why would you kill a person anyways?
This is a very controversial issue, and although I think that the death penalty is harsh, if we keep the prisoners on death row in prison it uses up a lot of our tax dollars. The inmates are making a good case, I think that we should watch over the inmates even more than we watch animals becasue even though they have done wrong they still deserve a humane death. I think that the death penalty has come a long way from hanging and that leathal injections is a better way to die than hanging or the electric chair. If the death penatly continues, and there is no leathal injection how will the inmates be put to death?
Anjelica Savedra
4th priod
8th grade
I totally agree with Gillian because the different penalty goes completely aganist the Constitution. Killing a human being is wrong in lots of bad ways but waht happens if a person that you know got kill. If it was me i would get mad and give the other person the lethal injection but thats my opinion. Get a lethal imjection sounds painful and it happens.
Annie Henderson
4th period
Human Geography AP
I think there are plenty of crimes out there that once committed, should only be punished by death.
So long as people are committing these horrendous crimes, the needle needs to be out.
We stopped hanging people and we stopped using the electric chair. Those both caused pain that though could have been deserved, wasnt exactly necessary. The lethal injection goes straight into your blood, and then you die. It's even better than drinking window cleaner.
If people are going to kill people, they themselves should be ready to die. And expecting death.
I believe that, as much as I would like for murderers to be killed on the spot (an eye for an eye), for an inmate to remain in prison for life is a greater punishment. Not only are they locked in a disgusting cell for all eternity, but they have to live with knowledge of what they have done (if they have a conscious at all).
I have no problem seeing criminals who have killed in cold blood being killed in return (they deserve it), but it does cost more to inject an inmate than keep them in jail. So let them suffer for life instead.
I believe that the inmates have a weaker case than the state because criminals should not have a say in their punishment. They were stupid enough to go violate the law and hurt other people, we shouldn't have to care about their well-being.
tatiana de lawyer
(tah she ah nah)
I am in favor of capital punishment on constitutional and moral grounds, but i question its efficiency when it comes to removing criminals from society for the term of their life at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers.
The constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment in the 8th amendment. I do not believe there is anything cruel or unusual about killing a man who has killed others. There are many ways to kill a man and have him dead in seconds, and there are a lot worse ways to die than lethal injection.
Furthermore, the constitution states in the fifth and fourteenth amendments that no state shall "deprive any person of life... without due process of law." This implies that with due process a man can be deprived of his right. That is as constitutional as it gets.
Unfortunately, executing a criminal can be more costly to taxpayers than simply locking him up for life and forgetting about him. The cost of executing a death row inmate can be three to six times as much as incarcerating him for life without parole. I am in favor of the cheapest, most efficient method nine times out of ten. If the state can execute a man for less than locking him up, that is the way to go.
On a related note, I believe everyone sitting in prison should be doing hard labor. Let's get the most out of them that we can while we have them.
RE: Everyone who says that executions "are totally against the constitution."
First, capital punishment was quite common when the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution. They shot people and hanged people. You can't argue that they thought capital punishment was cruel or unusual. It was even a family-friendly public event.
Second, the constitution states in the 5th and 14th amendments that no man shall "be deprived of life...without due process of law." The obvious implication is that WITH due process, the government CAN take a man's life.
With those facts in mind, there is not much of a reasonable constitutional objection to the death penalty.
Makenzi Cunningham
6th period
This is a very interesting case. All though all of the articles quoted have a very biast opinion against the death penalty, I do not think that a needle is in any way "cruel" or "unusual". I personally feel that if you have commited a crime worthy of rotting in jail the rest of your life, then you are game for the death penalty. I find no sympathy for murderers who are themselves afraid of death by a needle as being "cruel". Maybe a little fear of the system is infact what our citizens need. If it gets around that you can no longer commit a crime and then lead a cushed life on the tax payers money but in fact will pay for your crime with death, perhaps more people would think before they act. Death as payment for crimes has been around since the begining of mankind... I would love to see how people would react to the theory "an eye for an eye".
Gross Gross Gross.
I think that any decision or bill or law that effects the country and its functioning as a whole should avoid "morals" as much as possible. I don't care if half the world thinks it's wrong and half the world thinks it's right.... It's expensive. That's all people need to know to decide this case.
If i learned anything from Mrs. Moore it's that this country spends way too much money on things we can function without.
Ban the Needle, Ban the Death sentence but don't do it because it's inhumane and ungodly. Do it because it would be one more thing subtracted from the country's debt.
People always think the biggest problem is the thing that gets talked about the most but it never is. Maybe if we didn't have so many Killers then we wouldn't be complaining about Lethal Injection. How about we write a bill getting kids off the streets and out of bad homes and away from drug dealers? Then maybe we wouldn't have so many Criminals to kill... Start at the beginning of the Problems not right before you want to kill them.
I just don't understand why people haven't figured that out by now.
Gross. Gross. Gross... Now I'm all hyped up on "Angsty Teenager" and I'll never get to sleep... At least this is Kinda fun.
My family never likes to talk about matters like these. Every time we do My sister yells at me for being too vulgar with my expressions, my brother yells at her and my mother says it's bad for all of us as a whole.... The End.
I don't support the death penalty and think that it is wrong. Is is unconstitutional and also goes against "thou shalt not kill". In a way it may seem right to kill a criminal for what they done and have the family get some closure knowing that they got justice as well keeping the jails less crowded use less money. But moraly it should not be done. Taking a life for life is not always equal and know matter what the situation is killing someone is wrong.
I kind of like the death penalty in general. It can be a deterrent for crime: "Oh, hm, I think I'm going to murder somebody today. Wait, America might kill me back for it? Forget that, I'll rob a donut shop instead." Sure, it seems harsh. It should.
See, maybe the constitution is wrong. Maybe cruel and unusual punishment should be allowed. Would you shoplift if the penalty for your crime might be to have all ten of your fingers gnawed off by a dozen starving crazed weasels? Would you murder a police officer if the penalty was to be buried alive in a coffin filled with fire ants? It allows for some creativity in punishment. Creativity is good, it helps the mind grow. Unless you're the guy in the coffin. Murderer.
So yeah, my position is that the lethal injection should be illegal. We could do so much better than that...injection is so boring. We could have public votes on how to execute people, and then sell DVDs of the executions to raise money for...um...education or something. Everybody wins. Except for the guy in the coffin. Murderer.
il.comColton Limmer
6th
I think that the death penalty does go against the Constitution. I can see the other views about it, though. I have read two passages in the Bible related to capital punishment -- the first being where capital punishment is prohibited (Genesis 4:11-15). In this passage, if someone were to kill Cain, they would be sent to exile, not killed... The second passage suggests that killing a human is an offense to God and should be punished blood for blood.
So, I guess people could have two different views on it from a Bible perspective.
I also do not talk in class too much.
But, I know I can take a joke and have a sense of humor.
Mmm.. The Death penalty.
For starters i'll hit up on my own opinion of the death penalty itself. Morally, i'm against the death penalty itself. To me, the taking of a human life for any reason, even in vengeance for a human life priorly taken, is ridiculous. Violence breeds violence, and to further the violence only carries on the vicious cycle already in place. If punishment must be given,(a completley different argument which I won't go into here...) then I think it should be left to incarceration.
Now, as to the actual trial. Firstly, the accusers of the death penalty seem to hold the strongest posistion and case. The death penalty in almost all forms has at some point been proven to cause needless pain, going against our statute of "no cruel or unusual punishment", as most obviously unnecesary amounts of pain are experienced by some victims. The defense that Kentucky seems to be running on, i.e. saying that the problems are fixed, seems to be a rather hollow defense, with large amounts of evidence saying the opposite.
I am rather certain the result of this case will be the abolishment of lethal injection, but it will be followed by some new form of the death penalty, which doubtlessly at some point in the future will be challenged as well. Hoping for a complete removal of the death penalty itself, as I do, is a nice thing, however it seems at the moment to be a rather futile dream.
Spencer Davis, 6th period.
I do not think that lethal injection goes against the constitution because if you did the crime you should have to pay for it. I am not against any way of killing any body being electricution or hanging. I believe it should be up to the state not the us congress if states can pass there own laws this should be one as well. If you kill someone and get convicted for it you should also get punished the same way.
Candice Park
3rd period
As Gillian has mentioned, the death penalty totally goes against the Constitution. I think death penalties should be rarely used and used only for extreme cases, but it should also always be avoided by giving a penalty that will still have a great impact on the one being punished. If you kill a person because they killed a person, it doesn't make you any better than they are. Lethal injection is not the most cruel punishment but it still kills a person, and that should be avoided.
I think the death penalty falls under the catergory of cruel and unusual punishment and goes against the rights Americans have written in our Constitution. Morally, I don't think you can justify the killing of another person.
Whos to say that locking up inmates 23 hours a day in a small room with no contact with humans isnt cruel as well. Everyone has their own view as to what is cruel and unusual. And since we have not really been able to ask people who die natural deaths or in other manners wether any death is painful, we cant really assume that any execution can be painless.
I dont have all the numbers like Huy, or Lindsay's drive to save a buck, but honestly, if you were in their shoes, how would you want to go. Im sure some would wanna go by shark or something random, but who would want to go through a paralyzing, painful death which you cannot express your pain. Obviously hanging is not the answer, but even death by firing squad would be more painless, and more humane. Death is death, and you shouldn't make it more painful than it should be.
The currently used death penalty of lethal injection is not painless, but rather painful. An often used combination of chemicals will first completely inhibit movement, followed by breathing inhibition, then finished with the stopping of the heart. This does not sound like the most pleasant experience out there. Advocators for the death penalty have their arguements, that inmates take up space and money, and they are unequivocally guilty and such. As many cases have shown, the technology we have today does not always allow for the most accurate judgement. Making a decision to end someone's life would be violating that person's right to a fair trial.
Peter Young
6th period.
Post a Comment