Ohio inmate to get 1-drug, slower, execution
Condemned killer Kenneth Biros could become the first person in the country put to death with a single dose of an intravenous anesthetic instead of the usual - and faster-acting - three-drug process if his execution proceeds Tuesday.
Why don't they just do the job quicker and easier with a single injection of lead to the back of the head?
I wanted to say something, but I already said it before, so I'll just
re-post from a previous incarnation. It's only slightly dated, but since we seem to be on a hamster wheel within the courts in regards to this issue, it's almost timeless, and will likely still be
relevant when my great-grandson posts on his own blog someday.
(with a few grammatical alterations)
------------------------------------------------------
It keeps happening:
Gov. Jeb Bush suspended all executions in Florida after a medical examiner said Friday that prison officials botched the insertion of the needles when a convicted killer was put to death earlier this week.
Good for Jeb. I'm glad he did it. But I would hardly use the word "botched" while describing a planned execution that resulted in death. But maybe that's just me.
And from the once Golden State:
Separately, a federal judge in California imposed a moratorium on executions in the nation's most populous state, declaring that the state's method of lethal injection runs the risk of violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Honest people can disagree over the method of putting somebody peacefully to sleep through lethal injection as being 'cruel' or not, but in California,with well over 600 prisoners(i think its nearly 1000 now,but not sure, and
I'm too lazy to look it up), about 2-3 executions in a
productive year(usually, it's less than one), and the average length of time on Death Row something like 25+yrs and growing, it certainly is
unusual.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/624dd/624dd3c5a5a4b4a3cbf73786bfe28f5e2daa99b9" alt=""
It seems to me, the more we try to out think the collective wisdom of the ages through complication of the simple, something goes wrong. In an attempt to render death as nicely as possible, we end up rendering very little death through the most
torturously complicated of procedures.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6dccb/6dccb7ab31feb7b59384ea5d392e506e863ca018" alt=""
Tell me. What is so
goddamned difficult about placing a single bullet through the back of
somebody's head?
That's the way it was done for hundreds of years, is still being done by other 'less wiser'(?) nations, and works effectively each and every time. It's quick. Relatively clean. Cost effective. And
measurably painless.
Yeah, I know... the bleeding hearts and lefties will bemoan the brutality and bloodiness of it all, but if they can find it in themselves to defend the procedure of
piercing a baby's skull and sucking out it's brains, given time, I'm sure they'll eventually come around to acceptance.
To be honest about the issue, I oppose capital punishment, but not for the reasons usually cited by others.
I
do not think it is cruel.
I
do not think it is unconstitutional.
And for some crimes, I can think of no other more fitting level of sanction.
But in a fallible system, operated by
fallible humans, where the wealthy, the connected, the sympathetic, and the famous tend to
receive a more favorable level of justice than the rest of us; where 'equal protection under the law' is a promise without a guarantee, some things are just too final to be policy.