American state changes the way it executes prisoners... so that they die more slowly

Condemned killer Kenneth Biros could become the first person in America executed with a single dose of an intravenous anaesthetic if his execution proceeds tomorrow.

Usually a three-drug process is used when administering lethal injections, which is faster-acting.

The execution could propel other states to eventually consider the switch, which advocates say ends arguments over unnecessary suffering during injection.

California and Tennessee previously considered, then rejected the one-drug approach.
Though the untested method has never been used on an inmate in the U.S., one difference is clear: Biros is likely to die more slowly than inmates executed with the three-drug method, which includes a drug that stops the heart.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1233787/Ohio-inmate-American-executed-slower-acting-single-dose-anaesthetic.html#ixzzLcXJ3jRSq

Ugh. That is such a dreadful business. I feel so badly for the victim's family, but I just don't believe in the death penalty. I hope someone is there to pray & protest peacefully. I will pray for all involved.

It may, of course, be more humane even if it is slower. I have long wondered why they did not do it this way.

It;s slower but less painful if there is an issue with not being able to find a vein or if there is a malfunction with the machine. WIth the three drug process it’s possible for the one drug that paralyzes the breathing to be injected but not the drug that knocks you out. — agonizing death. Now, regardless of any issues the condemened will be unconscious. The drug used is the same one they use to put farm animals down.

Why can't they just shot them? Fast and painless...

Mind you if it was me I'd wanna be beheaded.

It depends which State a person is convicted. Oklahoma and Utah still has death by firing squad on the books as far as I know Gary Gilmore was the last man executed by firing squad in the United States in Utah. All the bullets went though his heart.

Gary Gilmore was executed by firing squad January 17, 1977, at 8:07 a.m. The night before, Gilmore had requested an all-night gathering of friends and family at the prison mess hall. On the evening before his execution, he was served a last meal consisting of a steak, potatoes, milk and coffee, of which he consumed only the milk and coffee. His uncle, Vern Damico, who attended the gathering later claimed to have secretly smuggled in three small Jack Daniels one-ounce whisky shot bottles for Gilmore which he supposedly consumed.

He was then taken to an abandoned cannery behind the prison which served as the prison’s death house. He was strapped to a chair, with a wall of sandbags placed behind him to absorb the bullets. Five gunmen, local police, stood concealed behind a curtain with five small holes cut for them to place their rifles through which were aimed at him.

After being asked for any last words, Gilmore simply replied, “Let’s do it!” The Rev. Thomas Meersman, the Roman Catholic prison chaplain, imparted Gilmore’s last rites. After the prison physician cloaked him in a black hood, Gilmore uttered his last words to Father Meersman:
Gary: Dominus vobiscum (Latin translation: “The Lord be with you.”) Meersman: Et cum spiritu tuo (“And with your spirit”) Gary: There’ll always be a Meersman.

Gilmore had requested that, following his execution, his eyes be used for transplant purposes. Within hours of the execution, two people received his corneas. Most of his other organs were used for transplants, as well. His body was sent for an autopsy and cremated later that day. The following day, his ashes were scattered from an airplane over Spanish Fork, Utah.

Methods of execution by State:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, but this article headline is 100% misleading/deceptive.

The change is being made precisely to address questions about potential "cruel and unusual punishment" in the older method. The article headline tries to make it sound like they're trying to make 'em suffer longer. I hate that kind of "journalism."

Exactly correct. The news article I just saw emphasized that even dealth penalty opponents were supporting the one-drug approach as being more humane.

I'm opposed to the death penalty. So, I would say have a firing squad made up of the jury. If they don't want to shoot him, he lives.

ATB

[quote="Mickey_Finn, post:9, topic:178785"]
I'm opposed to the death penalty. So, I would say have a firing squad made up of the jury. If they don't want to shoot him, he lives.

ATB

[/quote]

That's an interesting idea right there.

[quote="stanmaxkolbe, post:6, topic:178785"]
It depends which State a person is convicted. Oklahoma and Utah still has death by firing squad on the books as far as I know Gary Gilmore was the last man executed by firing squad in the United States in Utah. All the bullets went though his heart.

There was another judicial shooting in Utah in the late 1990s. Since then, the state has dropped shooting as a form of execution, in part to improve their image for the then upcoming Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City (2002?)

[/quote]

Might be a hideously prolonged death if none of those 12 people can shoot properly.

Then, depending on where the trial takes place, this might not be an issue:rolleyes:

[quote="Mickey_Finn, post:9, topic:178785"]
I'm opposed to the death penalty. So, I would say have a firing squad made up of the jury. If they don't want to shoot him, he lives.

ATB

[/quote]

Wait...I thought JUDGES pronounce the sentencing, and juries simply determine guilt....

[quote="Whitacre_Girl, post:13, topic:178785"]
Wait...I thought JUDGES pronounce the sentencing, and juries simply determine guilt....

[/quote]

I think the point was that juries would be less likely to recommend the death penalty if they were the ones who had to do the dirty work. Then again, you might get just the opposite reaction.

I'm thankful to be living in Canada where the death penalty was abolished. My brother, a police officer, and I had an argument on this topic one day. I argued that was better for 10 guilty persons to go free than 1 innocent executed. He believes it's better for 10 innocent men to die rather than have one guilty go free. Then again, his world consists of only three classes of people: police officers, criminals and potential criminals.

This is an issue that I have struggled with in the past. It was funny though, last year a pro-abortion professor was arguing that one cannot be pro-life and pro-death penalty. While I disagree with the professor I began to rethink my own positions, and decided that I could not support the death penalty anymore.

[quote="Phemie, post:14, topic:178785"]
I think the point was that juries would be less likely to recommend the death penalty if they were the ones who had to do the dirty work. Then again, you might get just the opposite reaction.

I'm thankful to be living in Canada where the death penalty was abolished. My brother, a police officer, and I had an argument on this topic one day. I argued that was better for 10 guilty persons to go free than 1 innocent executed. He believes it's better for 10 innocent men to die rather than have one guilty go free. Then again, his world consists of only three classes of people: police officers, criminals and potential criminals.

[/quote]

I'd be interested to see the numbers of how many conicts were sentenced to die at the reccomendation of the jury.

I personally don't like the idea of the death penalty as it is used today, but I do recognize that there are extreme circumstances where it should be used for the interest in public safetly. And those cases are exceptionally rare. Far more rare than the amount of times the death penalty is currently used. And I do think we have the right idea that the process shouldbe painful and done in the name of vengeance, but as painless as possible and in the name of public safety.

[quote="Whitacre_Girl, post:16, topic:178785"]
I'd be interested to see the numbers of how many conicts were sentenced to die at the reccomendation of the jury.

I personally don't like the idea of the death penalty as it is used today, but I do recognize that there are extreme circumstances where it should be used for the interest in public safetly. And those cases are exceptionally rare. Far more rare than the amount of times the death penalty is currently used. And I do think we have the right idea that the process shouldbe painful and done in the name of vengeance, but as painless as possible and in the name of public safety.

[/quote]

I'd say that such extreme cases cannot occur in a modern (Westernized) civil state under stable conditions; absent war, rebellion or natural catastrophe, the public safety cannot be threatened by someone's continued breathing no matter what they did. The state can always put them on Devils Island or the equivalent, if social conditions are normal.

I'd also say that the nonending search in the good ol' USA for "humane" execution is counterproductive; it reinforces the mass perception that judicial killing is OK as long as "they feel nothing." Without that proviso the general society might have got sick of the whole hideous mess decades ago. (France used the guillotine until 1981; England used neck-hanging until 1969; today neither country takes away human life as a routine legal process.)

ICXC NIKA.

[quote="GEddie, post:17, topic:178785"]
I'd say that such extreme cases cannot occur in a modern (Westernized) civil state under stable conditions; absent war, rebellion or natural catastrophe, the public safety cannot be threatened by someone's continued breathing no matter what they did. The state can always put them on Devils Island or the equivalent, if social conditions are normal.

[/quote]

But public safety can be threatened by paroling them. Most life sentence prisoners--often those convicted of murder--become eligible for parole.

That can easily be fixed by changing laws. Much cheaper than the dp process…

I agree, although I don’t think it’s so much a matter of changing laws as of deciding which charge to file. Capital murder, as opposed to just murder, at least in KS is harder to get a conviction on, and prosecutors will often forgo that charge because they are more certain of obtaining a conviction on regular murder than capital murder . And it’s harder to get a conviction on a life sentence with no possibility of parole than it is on a life sentence with normal parole procedures in place. My point is that it is not always a simple matter, legally and procedurally, to keep a dangerous person in prison.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.