Problems with lethal injection

Understand that I'm not protesting the death penalty. Although I think it's useless to kill anyone, as there is no proof whatsoever that it acts as a deterrent, I don't have a moral problem with killing men who have killed and can never be safely let back into the general population. I also think that anyone who seeks death for someone as a kind of solace for their own loss is completely misguided. Be that as it may, we do currently allow the state to execute people, for better or worse. What I do strongly object to is giving these men an inhumane and painful death. That may seem hypocritical and senseless to some, but I think there are perfectly good reasons why we should pursue painless and fear-free deaths. To that end, we must overhaul the system of lethal injections.

The first argument I would make is that we ban the use of physical (and supposedly mental) pain as a punishment. That's a 100% non-issue. Even though these men are death-row convicts, that does not change the law. It is flatly illegal for our justice system to inflict pain on them, regardless of what they have done, and this ban does not expire until the moment of the prisoner's death. As for the reasoning behind that, I would hope that no one would seriously argue that we should overturn the constitutional protection against "cruel and unusual punishment". If they do, though, that's an argument for another time and place. The plain fact is that lethal injections have been known to cause serious pain to some subjects. From the article linked above:

A third drug, potassium chloride, quickly causes cardiac arrest, but the drug is so painful that veterinarian guidelines prohibit its use unless a veterinarian first ensures that the pet to be put down is deeply unconscious. No such precaution is taken for prisoners being executed.

“The U.S. takes more care killing dogs than people,” said Jamie Fellner, U.S. program director at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report. “Just because a prisoner may have killed without care or conscience does not mean that the state should follow suit.”

The second argument I have is that the current system of lethal injections is entirely unnecessary.

Corrections agencies have rejected the option of executing prisoners with a single massive injection of a barbiturate, even though that should provide a painless death, because such a method would force executioners and witnesses to wait about 30 minutes longer for the prisoner’s heart to stop beating. Corrections officials have also resisted eliminating the pancuronium bromide – the paralytic agent – even though its use makes it much harder to tell if a prisoner is sufficiently anesthetized. The drug is not needed to kill the prisoner, nor does it protect him from pain: it appears intended mainly to keep his body from twitching or convulsing while dying. It also masks any pain the prisoner might be feeling, since he cannot move, cry out, or even blink his eyes.

Even when killing the worst offender, such as a serial killer or rapist/murderer, the state betrays our trust by choosing convenience over justice. We do not sentence criminals to pain, only death. Therefore that must be our only goal. Death without pain.

The state should always act with as much dignity as possible, and this makes states that choose to use this system of lethal injections look irresponsible and reckless. The state has no reason to desire a death swifter than is reasonable, and no right to make it so.

From CNN:

The justices, using a narrow legal argument about how inmates can file last-minute appeals, delved into the larger question of the execution method used in all but one of the 38 states with capital punishment.

"Your procedure would be prohibited if applied to cats and dogs," Justice John Paul Stevens told a lawyer arguing for Florida.

There have been more than one instance where an innocent man was put to death. This man was exonerated nine days before he was due to be executed. There are others we have not found in time. And should an innocent man go to the death chamber, his last moments should not be spent in agony when he's already been cruelly tortured by having his rightful freedom taken away.

The manner in which we take a human life should be based solely on our concern for providing justice. Our decisions reflect on ourselves, not on the prisoner strapped to the gurney. He won't take away our sins when he dies, just his own. My own opinion is that what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong, no matter what the circumstances are, and that torturing men whose punishment is death is also a crime. For the sake of human dignity, we should take all possible care when prescribing the ultimate sentence.