Supreme Court rules lethal injection may be cruel + unusual

Just what did they expect it would be?

from JoeUser Forums
Criminals that have commited capital offenses (offenses that can be punished with the death penalty) may be breathing a sigh of relief, even if only temporary, as the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-3 ruling that appeals of death sentences can be made that use the reasoning that lethal injection causes too much pain and should be considered cruel and unusual punishment (a violation of the eigth ammendment to the constitution).

I don't "get" this decision, at least not from the majority of the court. Unfortunately the news source (AP via MSNBC) doesn't list who fell on which side of the case, other than to say Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority and Justice Stevens was clearly on the side of the death penalty being too harsh.

At least 3 others joined with them, and 3 opposed. I can guess who opposed, and am fairly confident of who sided with Kennedy and Stevens.

Regardless, I have to ask what these folks really think the death penalty is, and just how they would recommend it be administered? Do they want us to load up those destined for the great here-after with happy happy drugs that will keep them from feeling anything and then load them up with the fatal doses? How about just giving them an extra long dose of nitrous oxide and then giving them the dose? Make us come up with new drugs that kill without pain? Execution by carbon monoxide?

What will satisfy the anti-death penalty types?

Man, it's times like this that I miss Bernard Shaw and wish he was tossing that great debate question at each of the 5.
politics
3,413 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, original news source (one of) link for this topic can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13277196/
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think this is really a staement for or against lethal injection. If it were I think the court would have leaned the other way. They do tend to lean the other way when it comes to people being able to question and challenge procedures.

Even if the current methods are found to be "cruel", which is a joke, that doesn't mean we have to reject it. They might have to change something about it or find a different way, but I doubt seriously this will stop them from using injection to kill people.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Frankly, from what I have read of it, I do have my questions about whether lethal injection is cruel and unusual as well. While I am morally opposed to the death penalty in principle, I feel that if it must be done in the best interests of society, it should be done as quickly and efficiently as possible. With lethal injection, it seems, the person can linger for some time before death. There are more efficient, less painful ways to carry out executions, and it would be in our best interests to explore them.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"There are more efficient, less painful ways to carry out executions, and it would be in our best interests to explore them."


Like what? You and I are obviously smart enough to know that if, say, you were instantly vaporized by some sort of explosion there wouldn't be any pain and anguish, but the bleeding hearts refuse to allow anything violent. Other than drugs, what non-violent way do we have?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
hanging in the town square at high noon?

I mean, really....what is so "easy" about putting someone to death? And, again, law seems to be based around, "an eye for an eye". If these ppl that murder, rape, and torture innocents should not feel any of that pain themselves, then what is the purpose of the death penalty?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Death itself is painful to a healthy person.  I wonder when they are going to use that argument?  IN the end, the Death penalty will not be voted out by the electorate, but adjuciated out by the convicted.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The injection case was a unanimous decision. The three-injection method could be considered cruel and unusual. There are other methds of lethal injection that would not be considered so.

The 5-3 decision was whether or not a person conviced 30 yrs ago can use DNA evidence to prove his innocence.

IG