March 5, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Overheard:
"I'm worried by this debate over whether or not lethal injection is painful.""Yes, we should switch to crucifixion. Then there'd be no debating the issue."
Here's my question: why don't we just put vets in charge of it? They seem to manage to euthanise dogs without undue suffering. And presumably they've no ethical guidelines against executing their patients.
Posted by Jane Galt at March 5, 2007 4:07 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>Wow, does the word uber-geek ever apply in this instance.
(slowly backing away so as not to be seen in close proximity)
Posted by: Tolbert on March 5, 2007 4:15 PMThat comment is even funnier here than in the other thread.
Posted by: apotheon on March 5, 2007 4:30 PMIf you read the original Hippocratic Oath, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath,
it prohibits doctors from performing abortions and deliberately giving patients anything that will cause their deaths. (I assume this part refers to euthanasia.)
If we are going to let doctors perform abortions and, in some places, help people commit suicide, then they should also be allowed to perform executions in states where the death penalty is legal.
So who gets to decide what morality, and by extension, ethical guidelines should be?
1) A religion?
2) The state?
3) Majority opinion (51%-49%)?
4) Super-majority opinion (70%-30%)?
5) The ACLU
6) The AMA
7) The New York Times editorial board?
8) The Supreme Court?
9) The UN?
10) The first 1,000 people in the Manhattan phone book?
Posted by: D------ on March 5, 2007 4:33 PMObviously we don't use vets because using animal doctors would be demeaning to the prisoners.
Posted by: bkw on March 5, 2007 4:46 PMbkw: With what it takes to get a death penalty nowadays, I'd think it more demeaning to the animals...
Posted by: markm on March 5, 2007 4:53 PMmarkm: probably, but we can't be doing anything that might hurt the convict's feelings or emotional well being, can we? Especially not five minutes before they wander into that deep, dark, night.
Although the more cyncial side of me thinks there's more concern about the feelings and emotional well being of folks who like to get offended by proxy.
Posted by: bkw on March 5, 2007 4:59 PMHere's my question: why don't we just put vets in charge of it? They seem to manage to euthanise dogs without undue suffering.Here’s my question: is this really an issue for people who aren’t already opposed to capital punishment for other reasons? Posted by: Thorley Winston on March 5, 2007 5:18 PM
Here’s my question: is this really an issue for people who aren’t already opposed to capital punishment for other reasons?
I wouldn't see why not. One could conceivably favor capital punishment and at the same time oppose the intentional infliction of pain.
What I want to know is: why can't they just give the condemned criminal a bunch of valiums (or something) before they attach the deadly needle? Wouldn't that put him out, so he felt no pain from his execution?
Posted by: Jasper on March 5, 2007 5:53 PMJasper -- That's basically what they do. The only question floating around right now is whether the sedatives they give the condemned man actually render him unconscious before the potassium IV stops his heart.
Seems to me a simple quadrupling of the sedative dose ought to take care of that, but then there's probably a reason nobody calls me an anesthesiologist. I mean, in addition to the fact that I probably just spelled the word wrong.
Posted by: TheProudDuck on March 5, 2007 6:25 PMI've also not been clear on why they just didn't massively up the doses. Put someone in a morphine coma that will kill them in a few minutes, then give them the potassium. Of course I wouldn't be adverse to crucifixion either, in the appropriate cases (I have some reservations about the death penalty - in that I want to be very sure that only the guilty get it - but for the appropriate people - including sex offenders - some big nails and a few days hanging outside seems about right).
Posted by: Hey on March 5, 2007 7:21 PMAs I understand it (I think the NYTimes had an article on this a few weeks back), part of the problem is that the major doctors' organizations (the AMA and the like) prohibit their members from performing executions.
Thus the executions are performed by other staff, under little to no actual medical supervision, often with rudimentary or no medical training.
Giving it to vets -- or to equivalently trained personnel -- would probably obviate the "cruel and unusual" objection immediately.
Posted by: Eric on March 5, 2007 10:11 PMIt doesn't seem like it should be that hard to kill someone painlessly. Don't euthanasia doctors brag about how good they are at that sort of thing?
Honestly, lethal injections aside, I've sometimes wished we did let vets treat people, at least in emergencies. They're efficient, available, relatively inexpensive, and they already use lots of the same basic drugs and techniques as real doctors. Some of them even make house calls. Lots of country vets already treat everything from dachshunds to draft horses, how much harder can humans be?
Posted by: Bryan C on March 6, 2007 8:15 AMThorley Winston is exactly correct. This isn't an issue because lethal injection is painful, but because lethal injection is lethal.
Posted by: Yancey Ward on March 6, 2007 9:20 AMTheProudDuck wrote: " ... The only question floating around right now is whether the sedatives they give the condemned man actually render him unconscious before the potassium IV stops his heart... "
There have been allegations in some cases that prison staff (who aren't exactly the most honorable people on the planet) have stolen the sedatives to sell on the black market, and injected the condemned person with water instead. I've no idea if that's true, but it sounds plausible.
That said, Jane's suggestion about using veterinarians is extremely sensible & practical, and would solve the whole problem overnight... .. which makes me 100% certain that it will NEVER be adopted.
"Obviously we don't use vets because using animal doctors would be demeaning to the prisoners."
I wouldn't worry about this too much if we were actually considering using vets to administer lethal injection, as I would guess that it makes precious little difference that you're about to be killed by an "animal doctor" when you're about to be killed at all. What would matter to me is that the person administering the drugs were able to make sure that it was as painless as possible. Of course, vets might actually be either clueless or lying when they tell you that Fluffy won't feel any pain, but knowing nothing about that, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
I guess what I'm getting at is that if we're going to be killing people at all (which I'm against in the first place), the process of doing so should be a fairly well-oiled machine by now, whether you have doctors or vetrinarians or prison guards with syringes. I don't think that you have to assure the prisoner that they're about to be painlessly killed by Dr. So-And-So, the best in his field, You simply have to treat that person with as much respect as the situation of killing them allows.
Posted by: d.cous. on March 6, 2007 10:47 AM" ... Of course, vets might actually be either clueless or lying when they tell you that Fluffy won't feel any pain ...."
I had to have a German Shepherd euthanized a few months ago, and I watched the Vet do it. All I can say is, that I hope I get to be as lucky as that dog was, in terms of having a quick, painless death when the time comes! She fell asleep before the syringe was even half empty; and within less than one minute, there was no more heartbeat.
My only objection to execution is the risk, high in my opinion given the legal system, of executing someone innocent of the crime.
The biggest drawback of the current system is the immunity of judges and juries. I would withdraw any objection to executions if, when a wrongful execution took place, that is the victim was later found to be innocent, the judge in the case was immediately executed.
You simply have to treat that person with as much respect as the situation of killing them allows.
My point exactly. I hope we are much more respectful, considerate, and compassionate towards the soon-to-be-dead person than they were when they did whatever it was to whomever it was that they ended up on death row.
Assuming they're actually, you know, guilty, and all.
Also, this lump on my face? That's my tongue.
Posted by: bkw on March 6, 2007 11:52 AM(I'm an anesthesiologist.)
They use around 20 times the necessary dose of sedative for lethal injection. The condemned, if hooked up to an EEG, would be indistinguishable from utterly brain dead after that dose.
Doctors are afraid of losing their licenses, which is why even those who support the death penalty don't participate in executions. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics says don't do it. Now, that doesn't technically have the force of law, but if you were dragged in front of your state medical board, you wouldn't have a lot to stand on if you violated it.
Posted by: Devilbunny on March 6, 2007 12:18 PMRemember that accident they had before they launched the first space shuttle? After a hydrogen leak test they did a nitrogen purge of the spacecraft's engine room and they didn't properly replace the nitrogen with ordinary air after they were sure the hydrogen was gone.
oops.
The techs just passed out. The ones who died never knew what hit them.
-dk
I would say that the condemned man should get to choose the manner of his own death.
In order to not be able to game this, there might be some ground rules: timliness, a maximum budget, can't violate treaties [so no underground nuclear bombs], etc. However, the condemned man would otherwise have wide latitude and thus no reasonable basis for complaint.
Some would choose one of the standard ones that doesn't happen to couple with his particular phobias, others would be imaginative.
-dk
Anon: So, punish the judge, even if the judge did nothing wrong? Oh, that's just, isn't it?
Sounds like just a sneaky way to ban capital punishment without "banning" it. (And if the guy later turns out to have been guilty after all, do you kill the judge who passed sentence on the original judge?)
Back on topic, what's wrong with a firing squad or the gallows? Either, done properly (and it's not hard) is quick and as painless as matters.
(The latter should break the neck instantly, the former destroy the heart, leading to rapid unconsciousness and then death. Or, for the less squeamish, high-power rifle rounds to the head should cause instant death.
A hydraulic press would do the same, but that's "unusual" punishment, whereas a firing squad is quite traditional.
On the other hand, there's the very plausible argument that "unusual" in that amendment refers to the sentence, not its mode of, pun intended, execution. A death sentence for jaywalking would be an unusual sentence; a death sentence for murder would not, regardless of the exact mode of death, which can only not be "cruel".
Certainly the idea that capital punishment is either cruel or unusual, or that hanging or the firing squad were, would have been laughable to those who wrote the Amendment.)
Posted by: Sigivald on March 6, 2007 1:36 PMWhy are we concerned with whether or not they feel pain? These are people who did not care about the pain they inflicted on their victims.
We do them a great service in making their deaths quick--another boon many did not grant their victims.
Posted by: jack on March 6, 2007 2:07 PMAbout 10 years ago, Utah executed a man by firing squad. He had been convicted of breaking into an apartment, sexually molesting a little girl and then strangling her with a phone cord. They had his fingerprints all over the phone. His sisters testified that he had sexually molested them while growing up. He lived in the same apartment complex as the little girl. He had an anti-death penalty judge (opted for no jury). He was sentenced to death. Convicts sentenced to death can chose between firing squad or lethal injection, with lethal injection being the default option.
When the time came to carry out the sentence, media crews came in from all over the world. Documentaries were made. One quoted a German lady comparing this to what the Nazis did (if the Nazis only executed pedophilic child murderers, they'd have a much better reputation today, but I digress). Claims were made that this punishment was a result of mormon teachings (a stretch, and inaccurate, but it sold papers). The weight of the attention prompted the Utah legislature to ban the firing squad. Now the only option is lethal injection.
And when it is determined that this has the potential for cruelty, I'll petition for the reintroduction of the firing squad, public opinion be damned.
Posted by: Half Canadian on March 6, 2007 2:28 PMDick King:
I remember an odd little article in National Review several years back recommending breathing nitrogen as a means of execution, and beginning by citing the same accident you did. The claim in the article was that what causes a feeling of suffocation isn't not being able to obtain oxygen, but rather not being able to get rid of carbon dioxide. Breathe pure nitrogen (with the ability to breathe out again) and apparently you don't feel suffocated. Or indeed, after a little while, anything else.
Posted by: Michelle Dulak Thomson on March 6, 2007 6:40 PM[Smiles an evil smile]
The mention of euthanasia reminds me - If we really want it to be painless shouldn't we just deprive convicts of food and water until they die that way? o_O
After all, those who favor euthanasia have all assured us that it's completely painless when applied to housewives who are found to be inconvenient by husbands with insurance policies so I'm just *sure* all the pro-euthanasia people would like to see it happen to convicts as well, right? ^_~
Posted by: Small Pink Mouse on March 6, 2007 8:56 PM"Why are we concerned with whether or not they feel pain? These are people who did not care about the pain they inflicted on their victims."
Because we are better than they. It is immoral to inflict pain unnecessarily, even on a condemned criminal. Don't just consider what it does to them, but also consider what it does to us.
Posted by: Njorl on March 7, 2007 3:00 PM"Back on topic, what's wrong with a firing squad or the gallows? Either, done properly (and it's not hard) is quick and as painless as matters."
Firing squad is messy, and hanging would conjure images of when it was done poorly on purpose just to be cruel. It is hypocrisy really. Every way we execute people will eventually be thought of as barbaric. In an effort to escape the feelings of barbarism, we change the form of execution.
I oppose the death penalty on the basis of our manifestly flawed justice system, not on moral grounds. If we're going to kill people though, we should not be squeamish about it. If the most merciful death mangles the body, we should accept it. If we can accept the killing, we should damn well be able to accept the mess.
Posted by: Njorl on March 7, 2007 3:11 PMLungs can discard oxygen just as well as they can capture it. This is why the flight attendant tells the passengers on an airliner to affix their own masks before those of their children. They would otherwise black out in several seconds, even if they could otherwise hold their breath for over a minute on the ground.
The children would black out, of course, but they will keep breathing and they won't suffer any brain damage for several minutes, or at all if the mask gets affixed.
-dk
Mark Kleiman pointed out exactly the same thing: since the suffocation reflex operates only because of an excess of CO2 -- NOT a lack of oxygen -- it is absolutely painless to kill an animal or a human by simply putting him in a box and either sucking most of the air out, or substituting nitrogen for it. (A few days before the first Space Shuttle flight, two NASA engineers were killed in exactly this way while poking around on a Shuttle engine compartment which, unknown to them, was still filled with nitrogen -- they never knew what hit them.)
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on March 9, 2007 2:22 AM