Saturday, January 12, 2008

Humane executions?

I'd like you to take a look at a very brief article over at Common Dreams about the Supreme Court's look at lethal injections as a method for execution. Here are a couple of paragraphs:

The question everyone is asking is whether anything is happening in the United States of America other than a two year long marathon to decide who will be the next president of the United States, news of each milestone being covered as though it were the determining factor in establishing the winner. As we draw closer to the time when there will be an event that actually determines that fact, news of all else is virtually eclipsed by news of what was, was not, is, is not, will be, may be, or won’t be insofar as it affects those seeking the presidency. I am happy to report that there is other news even though it is not altogether new news. It concerns the death penalty. And it is a subject with which two countries that treasure human rights above all else-the United States and China-are dealing.
As the Supreme Court case demonstrates, many people in the United States are concerned about the pain inflicted on those being executed notwithstanding Justice Antonin Scalia’s sensitive observation during oral argument that there’s no constitutional requirement that executions employ the “least painful method possible.” Some medical evidence suggests that a single barbiturate is easier to administer and less likely to cause pain than the three-drug approach now commonly used. The one drug method is used by the humane society in Kentucky and other states when euthanizing animals and is reportedly painless yet effective. According to Adam Liptak of the New York Times, however, one of the objections to switching to the single drug method employed on animals is that it is employed on animals. Death penalty proponents think that human beings are better than animals and should not be put to death the same way animals are put to death. It devalues the entire procedure.

Say what? Since a human being is more valuable than an animal we have to kill the human in a more painful way? Man, that is SO screwed up. My head is going to explode any minute.

Don't those idiots know that almost all the drugs we use to treat animals are also used on humans? Am I going to refuse an antibiotic when I have a serious infection because that same medication is also used to treat dogs and cats? Good grief. Good, good grief.


  1. Anonymous8:19 AM

    My mom takes the same arthritis medication that Rusty the Fuzzball took. I suspect she'd be horrified if she knew!

    If it's wrong for people to kill people, the State shouldn't kill people, either. That would moot the whole question.

  2. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" is unclear to these guys? I mean... Thou. Shalt. NOT. Kill. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.


New policy: Anonymous posts must be signed or they will be deleted. Pick a name, any name (it could be Paperclip or Doorknob), but identify yourself in some way. Thank you.