Killing Painlessly
Reading this article probably should have made me feel better, but it didn't.
Ohio must stop using a common combination of three chemicals to execute condemned inmates because they may produce excruciating pain, a state court judge there ruled Tuesday. ...
Then, in what legal experts said was a first, the judge instead ordered the state to start using a single large dose of barbiturate, the alternative method that opponents of the lethal injection protocol had unsuccessfully urged on the Supreme Court and that is common in animal euthanasia.
The decision is an exception to recent judicial trends in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in April in Baze v. Kentucky, which upheld a lethal injection protocol similar to the one used in Ohio.
The Baze decision did not foreclose all challenges to lethal injections under the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment. But it said challengers must show a demonstrated risk of severe pain along with a feasible alternative that would significantly reduce that risk.
The Ohio judge, Judge James M. Burge of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas in Elyria, appeared to concede that a constitutional challenge to the Ohio protocol would fail under Baze. He based his decision instead on an Ohio law that requires lethal injections to use “a drug or combination of drugs of sufficient dosage to quickly and painlessly cause death.”
Yes, it is a positive move that Judge Burge ruled that the three-drug cocktail used in the lethal injections during executions often caused excruciating pain and that this method of execution constituted cruel and unusual punishment. And, yes, his ruling that an alternative method which would cause a quick and painless death would be more appropriate does suggest a more humane view.
Still, I am very uncomfortable (not to mention heartsick) that this nation is still engaged in conversations on the best way to perform state sanctioned killing. Even leaving aside the issues of the potential for the execution of the innocent and the uneven application of the death penalty across racial and class lines (both of which still operate on the assumption that the state can and should have the right to impose death for certain crimes), do we, as a civilized nation, still believe that the government should have the power to commit the same act for which the condemned was convicted?
If so, then we have given evidence of not being among the civilized nations of the world. We might as well revert to stoning, beheading, or hanging to get the job done. At least there wouldn't be the hypocritical veneer of "humaneness" we seem to be striving for.
Ohio must stop using a common combination of three chemicals to execute condemned inmates because they may produce excruciating pain, a state court judge there ruled Tuesday. ...
Then, in what legal experts said was a first, the judge instead ordered the state to start using a single large dose of barbiturate, the alternative method that opponents of the lethal injection protocol had unsuccessfully urged on the Supreme Court and that is common in animal euthanasia.
The decision is an exception to recent judicial trends in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in April in Baze v. Kentucky, which upheld a lethal injection protocol similar to the one used in Ohio.
The Baze decision did not foreclose all challenges to lethal injections under the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment. But it said challengers must show a demonstrated risk of severe pain along with a feasible alternative that would significantly reduce that risk.
The Ohio judge, Judge James M. Burge of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas in Elyria, appeared to concede that a constitutional challenge to the Ohio protocol would fail under Baze. He based his decision instead on an Ohio law that requires lethal injections to use “a drug or combination of drugs of sufficient dosage to quickly and painlessly cause death.”
Yes, it is a positive move that Judge Burge ruled that the three-drug cocktail used in the lethal injections during executions often caused excruciating pain and that this method of execution constituted cruel and unusual punishment. And, yes, his ruling that an alternative method which would cause a quick and painless death would be more appropriate does suggest a more humane view.
Still, I am very uncomfortable (not to mention heartsick) that this nation is still engaged in conversations on the best way to perform state sanctioned killing. Even leaving aside the issues of the potential for the execution of the innocent and the uneven application of the death penalty across racial and class lines (both of which still operate on the assumption that the state can and should have the right to impose death for certain crimes), do we, as a civilized nation, still believe that the government should have the power to commit the same act for which the condemned was convicted?
If so, then we have given evidence of not being among the civilized nations of the world. We might as well revert to stoning, beheading, or hanging to get the job done. At least there wouldn't be the hypocritical veneer of "humaneness" we seem to be striving for.
Labels: Justice
posted by Diane at 4:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home