The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I have a serious question that I don't understand.  The morals of the act aside, I don't really understand the mechanics of the death penalty (or in lesser cases, human euthanasia).  You hear horror stories.  We electrocute people and it takes minutes, we gas people and they choke and panic, legal injection doesn't always kill you....I literally don't understand.

I put our cat to sleep over the weekend and the process was 4 shots -- they put in a catheter first and then administered a sedative to where they were immobile and had no pain -- they said that you could pull a tooth.  Then they injected saline (water), just to push the previous drug through the system.  Then they give an overdose of pain relief that kills the animal and a 2nd saline shot to push it through the system.  The process was said to take 45 seconds, but it wasn't even that long.

I understand that people aren't cats.

However, I had a colonoscopy done and I had a kidney stone procedure.  They do that and it's completely painless and you are fully knocked out.  So, how is it that we fuck this up.  Unless we are specifically trying to be sadistic, it seems like we could put people to sleep and then just kill them while they're sleeping, instead of making them be awake and choke their way through it.  I just don't understand.

It seems like the most humane way to do it is to give them a calming drug first so they aren't freaking out and panicking...before the actual death.  Then, you put them out with propofol....then you OD them while they're asleep.  I mean...you could knock them out with drugs and then drop a piano on their head.  It makes no sense.

A lot of hangings didn't go quick either if the neck didn't break. It does seem like by now we would have a better system. I mean facing a firing squad is better than having to be electrocuted over and over.

Even if you're going to do a firing squad, why not medically knock the person out?  We can do that 100 different ways painlessly.  We do surgery every day.

I'm no expert and have never witnessed an execution but I think the first shot does put the person to sleep.   :-

I don't know that I want it to be that peaceful. If I'm the family of the reason they are being put to death I'd like to see some concern on their face as they die. A little sadistic but I think it is deserved for the people who are trying to come to terms.

Agreed.  They're being put to death because they committed a heinous crime.   Nowhere in any laws does it say that said death has to be painless. 

The subject title and what it goes into are IMO, two different issues. Actually a whole lot of issues.

Firstly what is humane and ethical as far as euthanasia (legalized suicide/assisted death) for a person, and then execution of offenders.

There's a huge enough argument for the first, who actually want to die (particularly because of continuous pain and suffering) as to if it's right or not. If it's a choice by you, or by your Doctor if in their judgement you are suffering, and just happen to give you enough pain relief that happens to stop you living...

Then you are going into if it's ethical or not for offenders. Should they be put down like bad animals. They've given up their rights to be treated as a human being. When does the justice system determine that's justified?

Then the method. Should they suffer? I'm guessing the family of the victims want them to suffer, but is that ethical? What is the price they should pay? Is it ever enough? Are we playing God? Should we just let them rot in jail until they die, or will that cost to much to do it?

So many questions when it come to this.

^ I'm not asking any of the questions you're posing in terms of the ethics.   I am against the death penalty on legal grounds, in general.

I was coming into this with the assumption that creating fear and pain were illegal and unethical, as are outlined in our laws.  But I think I have my answer.  This is a form of sadism and it's complicated, scary, or messy because we want it to be.

Nowhere except the 8th amendment to the constitution. But you know, often times people stop reading at amendment #2

It's not that no one reads it but its that people read it with different perspectives. Unless I'm missing something there is no legal definition of "cruel and unusual punishments"  so its subjective to "society's" standards.

Wasn't very hard to find.

I'm against capital punishment. I don't believe government by the people has the right to kill the people. However, even if you support capital punishment, the fact that we can kill people painlessly and choose not to, is cruel and unusual by any standard.

This is the textbook definition of cruelty.  You acknowledge it yourself.

Just because you think the cruelty is deserved, that doesn't make it any less cruel.  This criminal's life is being ended, so there's nothing they can possibly learn from this experience, nor can it have any sort of corrective or deterrent function.  It is purely to cause terror and pain (as you describe it); no different than authorizing torture for those you think have earned it.  (Although I imagine you also supported the use of torture...?)

I don't deny that. Maybe not from the government but if someone hurt my kids, I'd definitely be willing to go to jail for a little retribution. The older I get the easier that would be ... hahaha.

My grandmother was murdered by her Deputy Sheriff husband in the 60s. While he got off scott free, because that's how small towns worked back then, someone(s) tied him to a tree in the woods and brutally killed him. I see no issue with that and neither does a lot of people. That's why the show Dexter and its spinoffs are so popular. 

So as long as its "done in a good-faith effort to restore discipline" it is ok. that doesn't really change anything I said. What you may see one way I would see another.

Being put to death and feeling some pain from it may be cruel.  But it's not unusual.

Lethal Injection is about as painless as it gets.

Not when they screw it up (https://www.npr.org/2024/04/18/1245290751/botched-exections-black-race-death-penalty):

There is no standard definition of what constitutes a botched execution. For its analysis, Reprieve designated an execution as botched if it met certain criteria. Researchers checked documents and witness reports to confirm details like whether there was evidence that a prisoner made visible or audible expressions of pain, was still conscious after a drug was administered, or whether execution workers had struggled at length to find a prisoner's veins.

That happened in 2022, when execution workers in Alabama spent three hours attempting to insert an IV line into the veins of Joe Nathan James, Jr., a Black man. His autopsy showed puncture marks and cuts in his feet, hands, wrists and arms.. A few months later, Alabama left white prisoner Kenneth Smith alive on the gurney for hours after they struggled to find a vein to use for his lethal injection execution, prompting his lawyers to ask the state to use nitrogen gas to execute him in January.

Lengthy procedures like those were not uncommon, the Reprieve analysis found. Over one third of lethal injections lasted more than 45 minutes and over a quarter took an hour or more.

Joking aside, I've never known a Vet to have trouble putting down an animal.  I'm anti death penalty all around, so I'd be more in favor of ending the practice.