Latest in Florida GOP absurdity: So tired of being humane.

[Shroom Man 777]

Put the carbon monoxide suffocation chamber in a garden with lots of trees then.

[TC27]

Nitrogen gas seems the best method - the prisoner could be restrained in a chair then a mask applied and it would be over in a matter of seconds.

The 'humane' methods used in the US (basically it seems introduced because they lacked enough skilled hangmen for long drop hanging) are truly bizzare - cyanide gas and electricity have produced many dozens of bothed and visually un-pleasant executions whilst the three drug lethal injection method seems needlessly complicated.

[Alferd Packer]

Yeah, nitrogen asphyxiation is possibly the most humane way. Because nitrogen is already most of what you breathe, your body will not panic when you breathe in pure nitrogen. You won't feel like you're choking or suffocating, you simply pass out after about a minute, and die after about 5-7 minutes. Also, there's no risk in venting the gas once an execution is complete.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

There's always been an undercurrent of "make them suffer!" associated with executions.

I have heard somewhere that the guy who came up with the cocktail they use at one point more or less said it was meant to make their death painful, but I'm not sure where it was written.

I hope we can find the name of the piece of human trash who invented it in such a needlessly complex way. More steps means more botches meand more unconstitutionality. It's an execution, not fucking entertainment!

[Rahvin]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

You'd think some people in public service had never even read the Constitution

It's somewhat amusing that the jackass is upset because the condemned man's legal representation fought to challenge lethal injection on Constitutional grounds...and that his "solution" is to introduce a bill that would be infinitely easier to challenge on those same grounds.

[TC27]

I can remember seeing the guy interviewed.

His position was basically that whilst he was worried that poorly trained techs werent putting the needle in correctly ETC he wasnt to bothered if the condemmed suffered whilst paralysed by one of the drugs.

[whackadoodle]

There's always been an undercurrent of "make them suffer!" associated with executions.

I have heard somewhere that the guy who came up with the cocktail they use at one point more or less said it was meant to make their death painful, but I'm not sure where it was written.

Jay Chapman

[Zixinus]

I am a bit disgusted about this: the only reason to bring back firing squads is for theatrics.

This isn't about bringing "more humane" alternatives or anything legal. It's just some wiseass politician's idiot idea of getting votes for "being tough on crime" by making sure as hell that the criminal suffers in his/her last moments.

Sure, a bullet kills effectively and probably more cheap. But does anybody seriously think there will not be serious mental distress at using a firing squad? Someone shitting themselves while being directed and stood there in an open field?

It's about making execution more of a show, nothing more, nothing less. While I don't agree with the death penalty anyway, if you have to do it, just do it cleanly and be done with it. If it were up to me, the only people who should see the person die is the executioner, the medical examiner, the to-be executed's guards and perhaps a priest (or even the warden or someone in similar administrative position to make sure that the execution has happened as it should). No show, no one views the event no "moment of vengeance", just be done with it.

It's an execution, not fucking entertainment!

Some think that it should be both apparently.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

I am a bit disgusted about this: the only reason to bring back firing squads is for theatrics.

Quite so.

[TC27]

In any system that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment I dont think the DP can be applied purely becuase in any objective terms keeping someone penned up whilst the State churns through the paperwork to kill them is a pretty nasty form of torture.

[dragon]

Nitram I'm far more disturbed by the fact that someone in the state took the time to give the electric chair a nickname... Old Sparky? Are you shitting me? Did they name it after someone's Cocker Spaniel for christsakes?

How are you just learning of this now? 'Ol Sparky' has been a nickname for electric chairs for almost as long as they've existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Sparky

you are correct... chalk it up to me living in a non death penalty state. Doesn't make it any less creepy and wrong to give a cute happy nickname to an execution device.

Most infantry men have names for their rifles and it designed for killing.

[Mr Bean]

Dragon is correct, having to rely on something to keep you alive humans being humans sooner or later we tend to name it. Be it a ship of war, a armor vehicle or a side arm. That's not universal but lots of soldiers I know nicknamed their weapons.

Also yes Firing squads are cheap at least in ye-olden days the squad most places was made up of prison guards you were paying anyway.
But for my money the best and most humane method of execution? Aside from Morphine overdose or the gas method is of course Death Coaster. Humane and fun!

[Zixinus]

But for my money the best and most humane method of execution? Aside from Morphine overdose or the gas method is of course Death Coaster. Humane and fun!

That has to be the most insane thing I've seen all week, topping the green pavement thing. Yes, it makes sense, but still: A rollelcoaster. To kill people. On purpouse. This is either so wrong or right mental picture that it probably got screwed the other way and got stuck in limbo.

[Gil Hamilton]

A killing dose of morphine would probably be far cheaper and more rational and much easier to deliver than the present cocktail of drugs, and would certainly insure the condemned did not suffer. For whatever reason it has never been used and I expect the reason is remarkably stupid. That said, strapping someone on a gurney and poking a needle in his arm is a highly detached, impersonal, clinical way of killing someone. It is rather more like how one would put down an animal than how a human being should end his life. If you are going to execute people maintaining some solemnity about it with ritual preserves the humanity of the condemned and helps sanctify the process as a regrettable occasion where the full weight of the state descends upon someone. It is entirely sentimental and revolves around aesthetics, but neither sentiment nor aesthetics are unimportant in human affairs.

What is wrong with the current chemicals? I've never actually seen any evidence that it actually causes prisoners to die in agony without being able to show it. Aside from the logical problem with that (how do you know if they don't survive to be interviewed and didn't show it?), one of the chemicals that is used is a chemical that they given so that doctors can saw open someones chest to do heart surgery and the patient doesn't feel it. Not only that, in hospital patients, they are given the minimum possible dose. In prisoners, they are deliberately given a massive dose of those chemicals to the point that the anesthetic itself would have been a lethal dose without the chemical that actually is there to do the killing.

[Mr Bean]

Gil the problem with the current mixture is that it's three separate drugs

Sodium thiopental or pentobarbital[13]: ultra-short action barbiturate, an anaesthetic agent capable of rendering the prisoner unconscious in a few seconds.

Pancuronium bromide: non-depolarizing muscle relaxant, causes complete, fast and sustained paralysis of the skeletal striated muscles, including the diaphragm and the rest of the respiratory muscles; this would eventually cause death by asphyxiation.

Potassium chloride: stops the heart, and thus causes death by cardiac arrest.

Two of the three drugs are expensive in the monetary sense, the complication and intricacy is also unneeded. When you factor in the problem of the number of trained medical personnel needed to set up a lethal injection and monitor it and the equipment it runs north of sixty thousand dollars per execution with some people states running even higher since the method of execution is so bizarrely complicated.

So what's wrong?
We could execute people with one drug (Morphine) easily and quickly and safely as we simply start the dosage low and up it until unconsciousness is reached and death is achieve in under twenty minutes Or we could use another drug (Like a barbiturate) which requires even less and is even cheaper (Relatively speaking)

Or we could use three separate drugs one to put the patient to sleep one to paralyze them and one to stop the heart.
That's what's wrong with the current method Gil. It's expensive and inefficient Oh and one of the drugs is rare enough We had to postpone executions

[MarshalPurnell]

What is wrong with the current chemicals? I've never actually seen any evidence that it actually causes prisoners to die in agony without being able to show it. Aside from the logical problem with that (how do you know if they don't survive to be interviewed and didn't show it?), one of the chemicals that is used is a chemical that they given so that doctors can saw open someones chest to do heart surgery and the patient doesn't feel it. Not only that, in hospital patients, they are given the minimum possible dose. In prisoners, they are deliberately given a massive dose of those chemicals to the point that the anesthetic itself would have been a lethal dose without the chemical that actually is there to do the killing.

Thiopental has to be administered carefully, in customized dosages, or else the risk of awareness is present. Post-mortem examination in at least one study found evidence that dosages had been administered too low in a significant number of cadavers examined. This is admittedly a problem more with the quality of personnel employed for executions, many of whom have no medical experience whatsoever. If they screw up, the inmate could die in considerable pain and distress but would be unable to actually signal it due to the effects of the paralytic. Of course there are now also issues with drug manufacturers refusing the supply the necessary chemicals to prisons in opposition to the death penalty, leading to untested substitutions and other issues.

Also being strapped down the gurney and subjected to the exploratory prodding of medical personnel (or worse, completely untrained personnel) is likely to induce considerable emotional distress. The entire process of lethal injection is distasteful for the way it clinicizes an execution, stripping the condemned of human dignity, since they are being put down like an animal. Allowing the condemned to die on their feet, in the sharp but very short violence of a firing squad or a hanging, at least to me preserves their humanity by allowing them participation in their own death. It also allows for a certain degree of ritual about the entire process that imposes a greater degree of solemnity and consequence to the proceedings. It becomes a moment promoting contemplation and regret while the gleaming medical efficiency of lethal injection promotes only disassociation from the fact of the execution.

[open_sketchbook]

I think that executioners should do requests. Honestly, we're killing the dudes, let's give each one a 5,000 dollar budget and let them go wild. If it ends up inhumanly, it's their own damn fault for suggesting it. Keep the popular methods around for repeat use.

[Gil Hamilton]

Thiopental has to be administered carefully, in customized dosages, or else the risk of awareness is present. Post-mortem examination in at least one study found evidence that dosages had been administered too low in a significant number of cadavers examined. This is admittedly a problem more with the quality of personnel employed for executions, many of whom have no medical experience whatsoever. If they screw up, the inmate could die in considerable pain and distress but would be unable to actually signal it due to the effects of the paralytic. Of course there are now also issues with drug manufacturers refusing the supply the necessary chemicals to prisons in opposition to the death penalty, leading to untested substitutions and other issues.

Sodium pentathol has to be administered in carefully customized doses for surgeries because using too much would put a person in a medically induced coma that is irrecoverable or outright kill the patient because the drug is that effective (this requires a skilled anesthesiologist, but generally the risk is giving the patient too much rather than too little). Then they do things like cut open the persons stomach and operate on them without waking the person up because central nervous system is that shut down. They do not do this for lethal injections. In lethal injections, the dose of sodium pentathol that is used is outright lethal on its own, never mind the pancuronium or the potassium chloride.

Can you name a SINGLE case where there was evidence that the person actually died in agony? How would a post-mortem examination (by definition when the person is dead) show that? Remember, the whole NOTION is that the body is paralyzed, so if the anesthetic was ineffective, then they STILL wouldn't have the normal muscle contractions, et cetera, that are consistent with being in extreme pain, nor any jerking around that would cause secondary injuries from banging around in their restrains. They aren't showing any sign of distress from the pancuronium, remember? This notion that the triple cocktail actually makes people die in agony is the stuff of urban legends. I'd buy it if ANYONE would actually show evidence that it was true that wasn't hearsay, but as it is, I'd think that a chemical that can make you not feel someone cracking open your rib cage in controlled doses would block any pain in a very large dose.

Also being strapped down the gurney and subjected to the exploratory prodding of medical personnel (or worse, completely untrained personnel) is likely to induce considerable emotional distress. The entire process of lethal injection is distasteful for the way it clinicizes an execution, stripping the condemned of human dignity, since they are being put down like an animal. Allowing the condemned to die on their feet, in the sharp but very short violence of a firing squad or a hanging, at least to me preserves their humanity by allowing them participation in their own death. It also allows for a certain degree of ritual about the entire process that imposes a greater degree of solemnity and consequence to the proceedings. It becomes a moment promoting contemplation and regret while the gleaming medical efficiency of lethal injection promotes only disassociation from the fact of the execution.

I would think that is more for the executioner's benefit than the condemned. I'm sure that is small comfort for the condemned. Besides, given American history with lynching, what humanity is being preserved? I associate the hangman's noose with black people decorating trees in the South and I'm not even a minority. Why shouldn't an execution be clinical? Do you think that people who conduct lethal injections don't feel a bit solemn or understand the consequence of the proceedings?

However, that has nothing to do with whether or not the execution itself is humane. Any execution tends to make the condemned die horribly. If hanging fails to break the person's neck and kill them instantly, they die by suffocating to death, with a broken neck or not (this, I'm sure you know, can and does happen). And I'm SURE that the first time a black man is sentenced to die by hanging from the neck until dead that THAT affair will have a lot of dignity (can you imagine what would happen if Troy Davis had been sentenced to die by hanging? The riots would still be going). A firing squad frequently fails to kill the condemned in one volley, necessitating someone shooting them at point blank. Hell, I don't think firing squads have ever even been used in the US except for military executions except by rare exception of a prisoner specially requesting it anyway.

[Broomstick]

What is wrong with the current chemicals? I've never actually seen any evidence that it actually causes prisoners to die in agony without being able to show it. Aside from the logical problem with that (how do you know if they don't survive to be interviewed and didn't show it?), one of the chemicals that is used is a chemical that they given so that doctors can saw open someones chest to do heart surgery and the patient doesn't feel it.

Yeah, well, during one of my mom's heart surgeries she woke up on the table during the middle of it, but since she had plenty of the paralytic she had no way to let anyone know. The docs, of course, completely discounted her tale until she accurately repeated about 20 minutes of OR conversation to them. She sure as hell felt what was going on.

In other words the drugs are good, but not foolproof.

Not only that, in hospital patients, they are given the minimum possible dose. In prisoners, they are deliberately given a massive dose of those chemicals to the point that the anesthetic itself would have been a lethal dose without the chemical that actually is there to do the killing.

That is contingent on them being properly administered, in the correct order.

[Broomstick]

Hell, I don't think firing squads have ever even been used in the US except for military executions except by rare exception of a prisoner specially requesting it anyway.

They were the preferred method in Utah for a number of years, and during those years were the standard means of execution.

[Simon_Jester]

I would think that is more for the executioner's benefit than the condemned. I'm sure that is small comfort for the condemned. Besides, given American history with lynching, what humanity is being preserved? I associate the hangman's noose with black people decorating trees in the South and I'm not even a minority. Why shouldn't an execution be clinical? Do you think that people who conduct lethal injections don't feel a bit solemn or understand the consequence of the proceedings?

By the same argument, sticking someone in a room and asphyxiating them with nitrogen is a gas chamber, and when I think gas chamber I think Holocaust, and I'm not even Jewish...

There are precious few methods by which you can kill a person that have not, historically, been used to kill large numbers of innocent people.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yeah, well, during one of my mom's heart surgeries she woke up on the table during the middle of it, but since she had plenty of the paralytic she had no way to let anyone know. The docs, of course, completely discounted her tale until she accurately repeated about 20 minutes of OR conversation to them. She sure as hell felt what was going on.

In other words the drugs are good, but not foolproof.

That sounds like the anesthesiologist fucked up in a far more spectacular fashion than I'd expect of a trained medical professional, given what I know anesthesiologists are paid. Did you mother sue them for that, cause I'd think she'd have a case?

However:

(A) That sounds like the anesthesiologist used too little general anesthetic rather than too much. That is not generally a problem in lethal injections where they deliberately give a lethal dose of the anesthetic. Also, was it sodium pentathol that was used?
(B) You can't possibly suggest that that is a common occurrence in hospitals.

What I'd like is some actual evidence this is happening in prisoners being executed by this method. If it happens, it happens, but with the way people talk about it, it sounds like urban legend stuff. You know "I heard, that when they give you a lethal injection, you actually are in agony, but they can't tell cause you are paralyzed, man", which I'm skeptical of, given the chemistry that is used.

That is contingent on them being properly administered, in the correct order.

Why wouldn't they be? "They could do it wrong!" isn't a systematic error. You can make a mistake with any method of execution you choose.

They were the preferred method in Utah for a number of years, and during those years were the standard means of execution.

Huh, no kidding. I thought hanging was generally the preferred method of executing people in the United States until we developed things like the electric chair and lethal injection. The more I know, I guess.

[Gil Hamilton]

By the same argument, sticking someone in a room and asphyxiating them with nitrogen is a gas chamber, and when I think gas chamber I think Holocaust, and I'm not even Jewish...

There are precious few methods by which you can kill a person that have not, historically, been used to kill large numbers of innocent people.

You can find mass executions of innocent people by lethal injection or by the electric chair? Besides, that doesn't really change my argument.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, well, during one of my mom's heart surgeries she woke up on the table during the middle of it, but since she had plenty of the paralytic she had no way to let anyone know. The docs, of course, completely discounted her tale until she accurately repeated about 20 minutes of OR conversation to them. She sure as hell felt what was going on.

In other words the drugs are good, but not foolproof.

That sounds like the anesthesiologist fucked up in a far more spectacular fashion than I'd expect of a trained medical professional, given what I know anesthesiologists are paid. Did you mother sue them for that, cause I'd think she'd have a case?

It turns out the shitty medical insurance company we had went bankrupt, which would have left us on the hook for the cost of her care. The hospital agreed to covering all costs, including what would have been co-pays, as an out of court settlement.

(A) That sounds like the anesthesiologist used too little general anesthetic rather than too much. That is not generally a problem in lethal injections where they deliberately give a lethal dose of the anesthetic. Also, was it sodium pentathol that was used?

Geez, it was over 35 years ago, I don't remember. Also, it is now known that people with the gene for red hair sometimes are more resistant to anesthetics and certain other drugs than other people, and mom was a red head. The second time around they knew that and compensated for it - they knew it, because mom wasn't the only person to report waking up on the table. For awhile there it was happening far too often.

More and more, anesthesiologist these days are using brain monitoring to check the level of consciousness of patients who are paralyzed as part of procedures. The brainwaves have distinct patterns at different levels of awareness, thus, the anesthesiologist can see if the patient is truly all the way under even if the patient can't communicate. In a sane world we'd strap those monitors onto people being executed by leathal injection to ensure they really are unconscious before doing anything that might be painful. No, strike that, in a sane world we wouldn't be executing people, but if have to do so, and we're doing it medically, we should use medical monitors to ensure it's as humane as possible given present technology. Why isn't it done? Cost is probably a factor. That, and you have to train someone to use the machine properly.

(B) You can't possibly suggest that that is a common occurrence in hospitals.

Not anymore, no, but for awhile it did happen. Never common, but often enough that something had to be done about it. We know more about idiosyncratic reactions to medications and we're better at identifying risk factors. That hasn't entirely eliminated such incidents, but it has greatly reduced the number of them.

The one time I had surgery I wasn't put under for it, but the anesthesiologist did ask if the red in my hair was natural or not. I got the same question prior to the colonoscopy I had, which also involved some sedation. I can't complain about either, the pain control was excellent, but it serves as an illustration that there is awareness of these problems out there. It's all manageable, but only if the person performing the task is knowledgeable.

That is contingent on them being properly administered, in the correct order.

Why wouldn't they be? "They could do it wrong!" isn't a systematic error. You can make a mistake with any method of execution you choose.

Correct, which is why any method of execution used should be as simple as possible.

[MarshalPurnell]

Sodium pentathol has to be administered in carefully customized doses for surgeries because using too much would put a person in a medically induced coma that is irrecoverable or outright kill the patient because the drug is that effective (this requires a skilled anesthesiologist, but generally the risk is giving the patient too much rather than too little). Then they do things like cut open the persons stomach and operate on them without waking the person up because central nervous system is that shut down. They do not do this for lethal injections. In lethal injections, the dose of sodium pentathol that is used is outright lethal on its own, never mind the pancuronium or the potassium chloride.

Can you name a SINGLE case where there was evidence that the person actually died in agony? How would a post-mortem examination (by definition when the person is dead) show that? Remember, the whole NOTION is that the body is paralyzed, so if the anesthetic was ineffective, then they STILL wouldn't have the normal muscle contractions, et cetera, that are consistent with being in extreme pain, nor any jerking around that would cause secondary injuries from banging around in their restrains. They aren't showing any sign of distress from the pancuronium, remember? This notion that the triple cocktail actually makes people die in agony is the stuff of urban legends. I'd buy it if ANYONE would actually show evidence that it was true that wasn't hearsay, but as it is, I'd think that a chemical that can make you not feel someone cracking open your rib cage in controlled doses would block any pain in a very large dose.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0040156

Pharmacology studies supported by post-mortem toxicology results suggest that administration of sodium thiopental may be inadequate to preclude awareness. Another study by the same team of University of Miami researchers found that in 43 of 49 executions for which post-mortem toxicology reports were available, concentrations of thiopental were lower than those required for surgery, and in 21 cases may have been low enough to allow awareness.

Now the point of criticism is that the paralytic agent means that it is impossible for the condemned to signal distress. So, you want me to present evidence of something which is completely impossible to verify? But if there is no sign of distress (because the paralytic would mask it) ergo there can't be distress! Well, except in cases like Romell Broom, where the attendants took two hours trying to keep an IV line running, or in that of Angel Diaz, who had to be injected twice because the first time the injection was delivered into soft tissue rather than the bloodstream. Because yeah, I kind of mentioned there might be some problems of implementation due to the poor quality of prison personnel handling the executions. And as Broomstick pointed out, even where administration is done by highly qualified, highly experienced, highly paid specialists, there are cases where inadequate administration of thiopental leads to medical horror stories. But thanks to the paralytic, we can never know if there is a problem or not.

However, that has nothing to do with whether or not the execution itself is humane. Any execution tends to make the condemned die horribly. If hanging fails to break the person's neck and kill them instantly, they die by suffocating to death, with a broken neck or not (this, I'm sure you know, can and does happen). And I'm SURE that the first time a black man is sentenced to die by hanging from the neck until dead that THAT affair will have a lot of dignity (can you imagine what would happen if Troy Davis had been sentenced to die by hanging? The riots would still be going). A firing squad frequently fails to kill the condemned in one volley, necessitating someone shooting them at point blank. Hell, I don't think firing squads have ever even been used in the US except for military executions except by rare exception of a prisoner specially requesting it anyway.

I would say the role of the condemned is the most important part of deciding whether or not an execution is humane. Lethal injection is little better than putting down your dog because it has cancer. It is so clinicized that it strips away any of the broader significance of having an execution. The condemned is strapped down on a gurney like a madman or a rabid animal, and is cheated of any opportunity to display virtues like courage or emotional fortitude. I think the very fact of being so highly restrained in that manner is likely to cause considerable distress relative to the lighter fetters otherwise required, even if we ignore that it treats the condemned in a way that denies his humanity. Whereas being allowed to die on his feet, the condemned has his essential human nature reaffirmed in the moments before his life ends. It also reminds everyone present, and ideally through them as proxy society as a whole, that something of considerable significance happened rather than a mere medical procedure.

In so far as hanging was the primary means of execution for the majority of the history of the United States it has plenty of precedent. Furthermore, it would be easy to develop replicable techniques to insure that a swift, neck-breaking drop happens reliably every time. Even if the attempt botches, the prisoner's distress would make it obvious and thus allow for his temporary reprieve, quite unlike what happens if the thiopental administration is insufficient to preclude awareness. Washington State and New Hampshire still have it on the books, and Delaware executed the last hanging as late as 1996. The firing squad was used in the West, in the states of Nevada, Idaho, and Utah, and is presently allowed in Oklahoma. It represents a sharp but rather quick death, and even in cases where it was botched a coup de grace would deliver a merciful end before any pain could go on for long. At least in so far as an execution does present the opportunity for a last affirmation of the condemned's humanity, a firing squad is probably the best choice. And even if it is all theater, the emotional and symbolic dimensions of any human activity are important still, and I find those severely lacking in the present lethal injection regime.