Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Prisoners on death-row in America who are to be executed by lethal injection have been granted the right to appeal to the Supreme Court on the Human Rights Issue. Apparently, their rights might be abused because they might feel SOME PAIN !

The method used does vary slightly from State to State, with some States administering the injections manually, but most are done automatically by machine.

There are three drugs used.

Anesthetic - Sodium thiopental, (Pentothal), puts the inmate into a deep sleep.

Saline solution flushes the intravenous line.

Paralyzing agent - Pancuronium bromide, also known as Pavulon, is a muscle relaxant that is given in a dose that stops breathing.

Saline solution flushes the intravenous line.

Toxic agent (not used by all states) - Potassium chloride is given at a lethal dose in order to interrupt the electrical signaling essential to heart functions. This induces cardiac arrest.

The dosage of Sodium thiopental which is given first, produces almost immediate deep sleep.

Excuse me, but where does the feeling pain aspect appear ?

I would have thought that a large dose of potassium cyanide would cause almost immediate death.

An interesting subject for discussion.......................

Sad to say, but yes, I believe it.
The world`s gone "rights crazy".

Highly hypocritical form of capital punishment, anyway - if you accept the premise, ( which I'm not entirely sure that I do...) then just put a bullet in their heads and get it over with, short and sharp.

Alternatively, apply a quid pro quo death system ( i.e. apply to perpetrator exactly the same method used on victim ) - which might prove a lot more disuasive than the prospect of spending up to 20 years on Death Row waiting for them to get round to you ( has anyone, I wonder, died of old age before they got around to them ?)

No, of course I am not cynical....
but I do still wonder why they use sterilized needles for lethal injections.

First of all, it is my opinion that the death penalty is wrong... but this is only because the law is far from from perfect and innocent people have been executed.

Some info from amnesty international...

"Problems have arisen in the use of lethal injection. In the first lethal injection execution in Guatemala on 10 February 1998, those charged with carrying out the lethal injection against Manuel Martínez Coronado were apparently so nervous (reportedly due in part to the distressing sounds of the prisoner's wife and children weeping) that it took them a long time to attach the line that was to deliver the poison. Then a power cut during the execution stopped the flow of poison and it took the prisoner 18 minutes to die. The entire ordeal was broadcast live on state television. In the USA, a number of lethal injection executions have been botched, with problems arising when the prisoner's veins are in poor condition due to intravenous drug use.

Lethal injection avoids many of the unpleasant effects of other forms of execution: bodily mutilation and bleeding due to decapitation, smell of burning flesh in electrocution, disturbing sights and/or sounds in lethal gassing and hanging, the problem of involuntary defecation and urination. For this reason it may be less unpleasant for those involved in carrying out the execution. However, lethal injection increases the risk that medical personnel will be involved in killing for the state, in breach of long-standing principles of medical ethics.

Any form of execution is inhumane. All known methods can be painful and have their own unpleasant characteristics. Moreover, it must be remembered the death penalty is not only about the minutes during which the prisoner is brought from the cell and killed; a prisoner lives with the penalty of death hanging over their head from the moment he or she is sentenced to the moment of unconsciousness and death.

The search for a "humane" way of killing people should be seen for what it is -- a search to make executions more palatable to those carrying out the killing, to the governments which wish to appear humane, and to the public in whose name the killing is to be carried out."

Statement in bold is an important issue for me.

Also, I think all current methods of execution are unpleasant for the participants and observers. Do they need to suffer as well?

Note that 3 states allow firing squad as an option.

I don't agree with the death penalty in any shape or form. But once you start all this b*ggering around with the legal system, trying to find loopholes and how your rights might be affected, it's inevitable that things like this will appear and common sense will disappear off the radar (that's partly what amuses me so much about the US). One of these days a child will sue its parents for giving birth to it without its consent, affecting its right not to have a life. Or something.

Tim_MaA_MidB wrote:First of all, it is my opinion that the death penalty is wrong... but this is only because the law is far from from perfect and innocent people have been executed.

Some info from amnesty international...

"Problems have arisen in the use of lethal injection. In the first lethal injection execution in Guatemala on 10 February 1998, those charged with carrying out the lethal injection against Manuel Martínez Coronado were apparently so nervous (reportedly due in part to the distressing sounds of the prisoner's wife and children weeping) that it took them a long time to attach the line that was to deliver the poison. Then a power cut during the execution stopped the flow of poison and it took the prisoner 18 minutes to die. The entire ordeal was broadcast live on state television. In the USA, a number of lethal injection executions have been botched, with problems arising when the prisoner's veins are in poor condition due to intravenous drug use.

Lethal injection avoids many of the unpleasant effects of other forms of execution: bodily mutilation and bleeding due to decapitation, smell of burning flesh in electrocution, disturbing sights and/or sounds in lethal gassing and hanging, the problem of involuntary defecation and urination. For this reason it may be less unpleasant for those involved in carrying out the execution. However, lethal injection increases the risk that medical personnel will be involved in killing for the state, in breach of long-standing principles of medical ethics.

Any form of execution is inhumane. All known methods can be painful and have their own unpleasant characteristics. Moreover, it must be remembered the death penalty is not only about the minutes during which the prisoner is brought from the cell and killed; a prisoner lives with the penalty of death hanging over their head from the moment he or she is sentenced to the moment of unconsciousness and death.

The search for a "humane" way of killing people should be seen for what it is -- a search to make executions more palatable to those carrying out the killing, to the governments which wish to appear humane, and to the public in whose name the killing is to be carried out."

Statement in bold is an important issue for me.

Also, I think all current methods of execution are unpleasant for the participants and observers. Do they need to suffer as well?

Note that 3 states allow firing squad as an option.

Hear hear.

I once received a letter asking me to sign a petition for restoration of the death penalty

I sent that back pretty sharpish with a VERY shirty letter I can tellyou.

I totally agree. JR and I have had a big argument about this through the PM system.

I worry about the whole concept of punishment (the wilful application of pain, fear or suffering by society on its misfits), but I absolutely abhor capital punishment which has never worked as a deterrent and merely counters murder by murder. The veneer of civilised society is so thin, that a Hitler or the Sun newspaper or the Daily Mail can far too easily cause apparently normal human beings to commit atrocities in the name of justice. Why? Because within us all seems to be a suppressed desire to inflict pain on another living creature like a small child tearing the wings off an insect. When this can be done with a feeling of moral certitude (as in the case of the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany or the hunting down of erstwhile sex offenders), it is, no doubt, doubly delicious.

The fact is that no reasonable man or woman will normally kill another - when he/she does so one must ask what genetic or environmental factor has caused him to commit the crime. I used to ask my students about the Yorkshire Ripper - Would they not, if born with identical genetic make-up to Peter Sutcliffe, and if they had had exactly the same environmental influences for every moment of their lives as he, would they not have behaved like him? The answer, as they invariably surmised, was yes - for they would have been the Yorkshire Ripper. If you take issue with this, then you must answer the question as to where that within us comes if it is from neither nature or nurture? Furthermore, you must accept that you are responsible for your genetic make up and indeed for your parents and upbringing. You must also accept that you are entirely to blame if you catch a cold or someone runs over you in their car even if you are on the pavement. In short, you are being entirely unreasonable driven purely by feelings - is that not exactly the behaviour of those you would seek to kill?

Having said all that, I feel that I must add that I accept that society must be protected from those who would harm us. All I ask is that for punishment we would substitute care; for imprisonment, isolation (if required to protect society); for retribution, cure.

It is argued that punishment acts as a deterrent yet in almost every study this is shown not to be the case - a violent social system invariably breeds violence
It is argued that punishment acts as retribution - yet how can adding a second injury to the first ever improve an already bad situation?
It is argued that punishment is a way of making a man "pay" for his crimes - so making amends for his misdeeds. Yet instead of making him work for the benefit of the community, we shut him away or remove his head neither of which is conducive to high productivity from the individual concerned.

We need to see that it is the injustice in our society that is often responsible for the misdeeds of those who are at the bottom of the social ladder.
We need to break the cycle of state inflicted violence which breeds violence
Above all, we need to work harder to identify at an earlier age those who are likely to fall into antisocial behaviour and to single them out for special restorative treatment (send them to CH?)

All this will need a change of heart by ordinary people as well as politicians; it will require a huge investment in time and money;
and it will need people like Mary, Cath and Tim to spearhead the movement to justice.

This is a really difficult one - at times reading the thread I find myself agreeing with much that is written. I am very much against the death penalty and find it hard to understand how a 'civilised' society as the USA can happily condemn the rest of the world for various reasons whilst maintaining the death penalty in many states.
But I also don't go along with the line that most criminals are just really unlucky because they had difficult childhoods ...

DavebytheSea wrote:We need to see that it is the injustice in our society that is often responsible for the misdeeds of those who are at the bottom of the social ladder.

Not really - sometimes they are little sh*ts as kids who turn out to be big sh*ts when they grow up. Often they are from wealthy or middle class backgrounds.
I personally believe that the drug culture has a lot to do with it but I do agree with the DBTS that they should be identified early and dealt with accordingly. Whenever I read about Law and Order in the UK at the moment - it seems that whatever crimes you commit - you get released early and go on the commit more. Prison isn't a deterrant to most of these people - but the Government also has a responsibility to protect society. So non violent criminals can be dealt with in the community etc. but surely violent criminals need to be locked up for a nice long time. Whats the point of calling it 'a life sentence' and then letting them out after a few years.... I dont know.

May I add my name to those who totally abhor the death penalty in every possible form and for EVERY crime.

Fixed penalty such a a life sentence for every murder whatever the context is wrong - that is one of the things that leads to the ridicule of the system. I agree with so much that DBTS has said. These criminals MUST be removed from society to protect others. Proper care and individualised treatment for them should be available. As so often money gets in the way, far more expensive to treat each as an individual than lock 'em all up together.

At the moment there is no satisfactory solution as far as what is appropriate punishment for mass murderers or premeditated murderers... i.e., those who would face the death penalty in certain states in America.

Science fiction produces many different and imaginative scenarios for their punishment and perhaps the technology of the future will provide a socially acceptable and effective answer.

Hopefully crime in general will be reduced as the gap between the haves and have-nots becomes less pronounced; technology is already having an impact on the feasabilty of car theft and advances such as "smart-guns" look to the future, so there should be less incentive and more deterrents for crime to take place.

At the moment the best we can do is lock away those who seem probable to re-offend so that the "needs of the many" are served and in some cases this would be for the protection of the offender. Perhaps a 3 time car thief should be permanently incarcerated, not as a punishment, but simply to prevent repeat offences?

I really don't think that punishment is a deterrent against crime unless the punishment is extreme relative to the crime, however; extreme punishment often has the knock-on effect of making the crime more extreme in the first place.

I think the way forward is not to think in terms of punishment for crime, but reward for not committing crime, but you can't realistically do that until you have at the very least, dealt with social inequality.

I'm against the death penalty.

BUT, as I thought about the comments already made, if I somehow ended in prison "for the rest of my life" (as opposed to a "life sentence"), I wonder which I'd prefer??
The thought of no freedom, locked-up 22 hours a day, no real life-experience to speak of.....would I want to be alive?

Comes back to the punishment/choice/cost debate........

Rory wrote:But I also don't go along with the line that most criminals are just really unlucky because they had difficult childhoods ...

DavebytheSea wrote:We need to see that it is the injustice in our society that is often responsible for the misdeeds of those who are at the bottom of the social ladder.

Not really - sometimes they are little sh*ts as kids who turn out to be big sh*ts when they grow up.

But why? Rory, why? You have not explained why even as children they were small pieces or ordure, nor why - presumably, however small the pieces of ordure might be - why they should be held responsible for their excrementiality at such a tender age.

I don't know what it is but some children are far more difficult than others.

Of my twins, the boy has alwyas been much easier to cope with, I kept waiting for the explosion when testosterone hit, but it never happened.

My daughter has acted like an adolescent since she was 2. She is always worse when she is hungry, so we just try to keep her fed.

I don't think either of them have ever pulled the wings off flies though daughter did try to bite a chunk out of the headmaster's ankle one lunchtime when she was about 7. He was 6'3 and had played in the front row for Bath thirds or something, BIG scary fellow anyway.

.... and our Home Office admit today that at least 50 people sentenced to Life after the year 2,000 have ALREADY BEEN RELEASED ON LICENCE !

So that now makes a life sentence in this country around 6 years !

And you lot wonder why I believe in capital punishment ?

The way things are going, by the year 2,050, anybody convicted of murder will be eligable to an immediate parole, £10 Grand from the poor box and a guaranteed pension.

Tony Martin had the right idea !