The death penalty

[zekeb]

Would it be constitutional to demand that someone choose their method of cruel and unusual punishment?

[noblepa]

Would it be constitutional to demand that someone choose their method of cruel and unusual punishment?

I know what you are trying to say, and I sympathize. I'm pretty much against the death penalty.

But as we like to point out to the sovereign citizens and tax deniers, in this country, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, not what you and I think it means, or should mean. And SCOTUS has ruled (and never changed their minds) that the DP is not "cruel and unusual" punishment, at least vis a vis the US Constitution.

Unless/until SCOTUS reverses itself, or there is a Constitutional Amendment, the DP will not be legally "cruel and unusual".

[LM K]

https://www.chron.com/news/article/New- ... 182121.php

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster has signed into law a bill that forces death row inmates for now to choose between the electric chair or a newly formed firing squad in hopes the state can restart executions after an involuntary 10-year pause.

Two inmates who have exhausted their appeals immediately sued, saying they can't be electrocuted or shot since they were sentenced under a prior law that made lethal injection the default execution method.

South Carolina had been one of the most prolific states of its size in putting inmates to death. But a lack of lethal injection drugs brought executions to a halt.

This won't go over well. Lethal injection was developed to make witnesses more comfortable. No one wants to watch someone being electrocuted or shot.

[bob]

Unless/until SCOTUS reverses itself, or there is a Constitutional Amendment, the DP will not be legally "cruel and unusual".

Zeke asked a different question:

Would it be constitutional to demand that someone choose their method of cruel and unusual punishment?

I recall there a lawsuit that rejected this argument (forcing the inmate to choose is undo itself cruel and unusual), but I can't find it presently.

Regardless, the South Carolina law is less about choice and more about alternatives. It basically restores electrocution as the default method of execution, with lethal injection and firing squads as options, provided they are actually available.

At present, the inmates are all choosing injection because they know it isn't available. The new law allows the state to claim injection's unavailability and use electrocution, unless a firing squad is available and the inmate chooses it. E.g.:

"We're going electrocute you, unless you choose lethal injection and it is available."
"I choose lethal injection."
"It isn't available; we're going electrocute you, unless you choose firing squad and it is available."
"I choose firing squad."
"It isn't available; we're going electrocute you."

I assume the first time South Carolina declares a method to be unavailable that a lawsuit will challenge the state's declaration.

[roadscholar]

I reiterate:

If some countries have figured out reliable, humane voluntary euthanasia... why the hell is it so hard to carry out the DP in like manner?

[bob]

I reiterate:

If some countries have figured out reliable, humane voluntary euthanasia... why the hell is it so hard to carry out the DP in like manner?

The short answer: the drug manufacturers.

The drug manufacturers don't want their products associated with involuntary death, so they prohibit their products' sale -- and resale -- to those who would use them for nonconsensual killings.

[roadscholar]

Seriously? And no generic equivalents can be had anywhere in the world?

It sounds like the States that still execute aren't really trying to do it better.

[LM K]

Seriously? And no generic equivalents can be had anywhere in the world?

It sounds like the States that still execute aren't really trying to do it better.

The drugs used for lethal injection are all generic drugs.

States just can't get these drugs. The below link provides lots of info about this issue.

A few states have turned to compounding pharmacies. The Board of Directors of the International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists is now asking compounding pharmacies to stop mixing drugs for prisons.

Prisons are now having an extremely hard time finding doctors willing to participate in executions.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions ... fessionals

In some death penalty states, governors have put a moratorium on executions. The governors refuse to sign off on executions, which stops the entire process. OR and CA have moratoriums on the death penalty. In some states, courts have ordered that the state halt all executions.

[roadscholar]

Nobody wants to be tarnished by participating in penal euthanasia, despite some states going back to Ol’ Sparky and the Firing Squad, and have botched Lethal Injections?

All righty then.

Bear in mind I am not advocating capital punishment. I am starting with “If some States are going to continue to execute capital-offense convicts, then...”

And what follows is “...shouldn’t they do it humanely? Isn’t death enough without adding horrific suffering first, even if the process goes as intended, which it sometimes doesn’t?”

If so, couldn’t one argue that the druggists and doctors are facilitating barbaric, sadistic procedures, albeit indirectly? Sinning by omission?

Again, I’m not necessarily behind that argument. Do they have a perfect right to refuse to get involved? Absolutely. Every single one. But perhaps it wouldn’t be the worst thing if a few brave souls volunteered, if it would demonstrably prevent more horrid procedures.

Perhaps their reasoning is that if it continues to be barbaric, maybe that will hasten the prohibition of capital punishment. That making it like putting pets peacefully to sleep would encourage the practice, making executions easier to swallow.

Not a terrible argument, even if it hinges on the adage “cruel, only to be kind.”

[LM K]

Nobody wants to be tarnished by participating in penal euthanasia, despite some states going back to Ol’ Sparky and the Firing Squad, and have botched Lethal Injections?

All righty then.

Bear in mind I am not advocating capital punishment. I am starting with “If some States are going to continue to execute capital-offense convicts, then...”

And what follows is “...shouldn’t they do it humanely? Isn’t death enough without adding horrific suffering first, even if the process goes as intended, which it sometimes doesn’t?”

If so, couldn’t one argue that the druggists and doctors are facilitating barbaric, sadistic procedures, albeit indirectly? Sinning by omission?

Again, I’m not necessarily behind that argument. Do they have a perfect right to not get involved? Absolutely. Every single one. But perhaps it wouldn’t be the worst thing if a few brave souls volunteered, if it would demonstrably prevent more horrid procedures.

Perhaps their reasoning is that if it continues to be barbaric, maybe that will hasten the prohibition of capital punishment. That making it like putting pets peacefully to sleep would encourage the practice, making executions easier to swallow?

Not a terrible argument, even if it hinges on the adage “cruel, only to be kind.”

I absolutely see your point.

I've read that electrocution is a brutal thing to watch. Many electric chairs that exist are ancient.

[Lani]

A major part of the cruelty of an execution is the preparation rituals for it. The final meal, the final walk, the chair, strapping the person in, attaching the cords, etc. Or being strapped to a gurney and having various medical devices attached. If it was more like letting go of our beloved pets, the death would happen quickly.

[LM K]

A fascinating (and not gorey) article about the death penalty.

Of all methods of execution, it is lethal injection that is most frequently botched.

America's Long and Gruesome History of Botched Executions

Sarat says science and technology have played important roles in shaping capital punishment in America over the past century. But his research finds that while the methods of execution have changed, their efficiency has not improved. In fact, between 1980 and 2010 the rate of botched executions was higher than ever: 8.53 percent.

He spoke with WIRED about why he believes the long history of executions gone wrong deserves more attention in the current conversation about the death penalty in America.

WIRED: How unusual is a botched lethal injection like the recent one in Oklahoma?

Austin Sarat: The fact that an execution was botched, or that a lethal injection was botched, was in itself not unusual. In doing the research for the book we found that from 1890 to 2010, just over 3 percent of all American executions were botched. Since the introduction of lethal injection in 1980, just over 7 percent of lethal injections have been botched.

[zekeb]

Firing squad. What if... What if several of the participants aren't exactly at ease with what they are doing? What if some aren't the best marksmen? Add everything to the stress of the situation and you have the formula for a botched execution.

[neonzx]

What countries still use firing squads? Seems we've slipped back into some past century.

[fierceredpanda]

Firing squad. What if... What if several of the participants aren't exactly at ease with what they are doing? What if some aren't the best marksmen? Add everything to the stress of the situation and you have the formula for a botched execution.

Typically, a firing squad is composed of a number of shooters with at least one being provided with a blank round. The rifles are loaded before the shooters get their hands on them. While an experienced shooter can usually tell the difference between the recoil of a live round and that of a blank, the knowledge that at least one shooter is firing a blank encourages the whole squad to recall the recoil as light, therefore allowing them to believe they fired a blank and thus have a clear conscience. It's basic diffusion of responsibility stuff, just like how lethal injection chambers have two buttons or keys to activate the system. Only one of them actually does, and a computer irretrievably scrambles the records so there is no way to find out which button/key actually killed the condemned. And yet the diffused responsibility also makes people take careful aim and be less nervous, because human psychology is weird like that.

Even Justice Sotomayor (no friend of the death penalty) has referred to the fact that firing squad has historically had far fewer botched executions than lethal injection, and may be much less painful to the condemned. I'm not saying all of this to advocate for firing squads. But if I were on death row and given the choice, I think I'd choose firing squad, unless Albert Pierrepoint were still alive, in which case I'd choose hanging.

[sugar magnolia]

Firing squad. What if... What if several of the participants aren't exactly at ease with what they are doing? What if some aren't the best marksmen? Add everything to the stress of the situation and you have the formula for a botched execution.

Typically, a firing squad is composed of a number of shooters with at least one being provided with a blank round. The rifles are loaded before the shooters get their hands on them. While an experienced shooter can usually tell the difference between the recoil of a live round and that of a blank, the knowledge that at least one shooter is firing a blank encourages the whole squad to recall the recoil as light, therefore allowing them to believe they fired a blank and thus have a clear conscience. It's basic diffusion of responsibility stuff, just like how lethal injection chambers have two buttons or keys to activate the system. Only one of them actually does, and a computer irretrievably scrambles the records so there is no way to find out which button/key actually killed the condemned. And yet the diffused responsibility also makes people take careful aim and be less nervous, because human psychology is weird like that.

Even Justice Sotomayor (no friend of the death penalty) has referred to the fact that firing squad has historically had far fewer botched executions than lethal injection, and may be much less painful to the condemned. I'm not saying all of this to advocate for firing squads. But if I were on death row and given the choice, I think I'd choose firing squad, unless Albert Pierrepoint were still alive, in which case I'd choose hanging.

Also, I seem to remember that firing squad shooters are all volunteers. I can't imagine they would volunteer if they were morally opposed to it.

Another thought on lethal injection; Several years ago after the issue of the drugs being hard to procure made the news, I believe there were a couple of states who have it written into their laws that they must be purchased through the same channels anything else is. Public bids, public records of the purchases, that sort of thing. The state can't just go under the table and purchase them off the internet from Mexico and they can't shield the companies they buy from. Easy enough for the drug companies to simply not bid on providing them.

[zekeb]

Firing squad. What if... What if several of the participants aren't exactly at ease with what they are doing? What if some aren't the best marksmen? Add everything to the stress of the situation and you have the formula for a botched execution.

Typically, a firing squad is composed of a number of shooters with at least one being provided with a blank round. The rifles are loaded before the shooters get their hands on them. While an experienced shooter can usually tell the difference between the recoil of a live round and that of a blank, the knowledge that at least one shooter is firing a blank encourages the whole squad to recall the recoil as light, therefore allowing them to believe they fired a blank and thus have a clear conscience. It's basic diffusion of responsibility stuff, just like how lethal injection chambers have two buttons or keys to activate the system. Only one of them actually does, and a computer irretrievably scrambles the records so there is no way to find out which button/key actually killed the condemned. And yet the diffused responsibility also makes people take careful aim and be less nervous, because human psychology is weird like that.

Even Justice Sotomayor (no friend of the death penalty) has referred to the fact that firing squad has historically had far fewer botched executions than lethal injection, and may be much less painful to the condemned. I'm not saying all of this to advocate for firing squads. But if I were on death row and given the choice, I think I'd choose firing squad, unless Albert Pierrepoint were still alive, in which case I'd choose hanging.

Also, I seem to remember that firing squad shooters are all volunteers. I can't imagine they would volunteer if they were morally opposed to it.

Another thought on lethal injection; Several years ago after the issue of the drugs being hard to procure made the news, I believe there were a couple of states who have it written into their laws that they must be purchased through the same channels anything else is. Public bids, public records of the purchases, that sort of thing. The state can't just go under the table and purchase them off the internet from Mexico and they can't shield the companies they buy from. Easy enough for the drug companies to simply not bid on providing them.

I seem to recall that not too many years ago Nebraska executed someone using lethal injection. The drugs were procured using some back door scheme. One of the state senators investigated and then outed the scheme, but it was too late. The remainder of the drugs have since passed their expiration date.

[neeneko]

What countries still use firing squads? Seems we've slipped back into some past century.

Isn't that kinda the point? A bunch of people glorifying 'the way things used to be' and 'how they remember it', rolling things back to an era when incarceration was as brutal as possible in order to get that sweet sweet politically and theologically popular suffering.

[zekeb]

The guillotine is quicker and more painless than the firing squad. Once built, it's the ultimate in a green way to execute people. Why didn't the S.C. Legislature choose this humane and cost-effective method?

[Uninformed]

The guillotine is quicker and more painless than the firing squad. Once built, it's the ultimate in a green way to execute people. Why didn't the S.C. Legislature choose this humane and cost-effective method?

Couldn’t find enough women that knit.

[Maybenaut]

The guillotine is quicker and more painless than the firing squad. Once built, it's the ultimate in a green way to execute people. Why didn't the S.C. Legislature choose this humane and cost-effective method?

Couldn’t find enough women that knit.

[fierceredpanda]

The guillotine is quicker and more painless than the firing squad. Once built, it's the ultimate in a green way to execute people. Why didn't the S.C. Legislature choose this humane and cost-effective method?

Couldn’t find enough women that knit.

This is pretty good, but that wooshing sound you just heard was the "oof" I audibly let out upon reading it.

[neeneko]

The guillotine is quicker and more painless than the firing squad. Once built, it's the ultimate in a green way to execute people. Why didn't the S.C. Legislature choose this humane and cost-effective method?

Too French?

[LM K]

Since 1900, no firing squad executions have been botched.

From the article I posted previously.

For his new book, Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty, Austin Sarat, a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College researched the history of botched executions in the United States. And there have been plenty.

"WIRED: In the book you mention that there's one method with no documented botched executions, but you don't say much about it.

Sarat: The firing squad. We don't talk much about it because in 120 years there were only 34 executions. It's not been an important technology in part because it seemed to be unusually gruesome. As the courts have interpreted the 8th Amendment, they've said executions have to be compatible with the evolving standards of decency in society and I think the firing squad is hard to square with that kind of commitment.

Sarat's book Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death PenaltyThe book is published by Stanford University Press.

From Amazon's author's description :

Austin Sarat's book instantly became an essential resource for citizens, scholars, and lawmakers interested in capital punishment―even the Supreme Court, which cited the book in its recent opinion, Glossip v. Gross.

Sarat's other books have been published by Universities: Cambridge University Press (1 book), Columbia University Press (1 book), Princeton University Press (3 books), and the University of Michigan.

[LM K]

The guillotine is quicker and more painless than the firing squad. Once built, it's the ultimate in a green way to execute people. Why didn't the S.C. Legislature choose this humane and cost-effective method?

Too French?

Way too gruesome.