They had no compassion for their victims – what’s wrong with a modicum of suffering for them as they pay their final debt to society?

Execution by lethal injection may cause excruciating pain, contradicting its reputation as a humane and thus publicly acceptable way to impose the death penalty, Human Rights Watch said.

Executioners fail to take the steps needed to ensure a painless death and use a drug that veterinarians have deemed too cruel for putting down dogs and cats, the group said in a report released on Monday.

However, a leading death penalty proponent dismissed the report as "blind speculation," saying there was no evidence of someone being conscious and in agony during lethal injection.

Human Rights Watch, which opposes the death penalty in all cases, issued the report amid increased scrutiny of lethal injections across America.

In other words, these are folks who are willing to do whatever it takes to get the death penalty abolished, and they are willing to make claims that are unsubstantiated to get their desired result. They also ignore the bigger question – is suffering as a part of punishment inappropriate?

UPDATE: The Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on a lethal injection challenge on Wednesday, April 26. Let's hope that the justices find this argument as absurd as I do.

"The point of this is not to prevent the death penalty," said Paul Enzinna, a lawyer who represents James Roane, one of three federal prisoners who were to be executed in May until Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted them stays of execution March 2. "I have a client who is going to be put to death and the federal government owes him, under the Constitution, an execution without pain."

No, the government does not owe this shyster's client a painless death. Constitutionally, it owes him a humane death -- and I question whether he is morally owed even that much. After all, as noted above, most of these monsters showed no such consideration for their victims.

If lethal injection is ended, I urge states to bring back the firing squad and hanging as civilized methods that have stood the test of time.

Oh, and by the way, I love this inane argument from the New York Times.

Over the years, several justices have concluded that the death penalty is in all cases unconstitutional, including Justice Harry Blackmun, who famously declared, "From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death." We agree with Justice Blackmun and hope that the tinkering will someday stop and that the law of the land will recognize that the Eighth Amendment bars capital punishment completely. But even justices who think the Constitution permits capital punishment should find that lethal injections that torture prisoners in the process of killing them are unconstitutional.

Only one problem with that Eighth Amendment argument, other than the fact that it has been repeatedly rejected by virtually every court that has considered the issue. It is that the Fift Amendment, adopted at the same time as teh Eighth, makes specific reference to capital crimes and individuals being put in jeopardy of their lives for their crimes. Obviously the Eighth Amendment, read in context, cannot be seen as banning the death penalty. The Fourteenth Amendment includes similar language which again upholds the notion that the death penalty is constitutionally acceptable.

In other words, the clear language of the Constitution must be ignored to argue that there is a Constitutional prohibition on the death penalty -- so the proper place to seek its elimination is the legislatures of the fifty states and the US Congress.

Posted by: Greg at 09:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 626 words, total size 4 kb.