Execution rules still inhumane
By A TIMES EDITORIAL
Published May 14, 2007
Florida's death chamber is about to reopen. The Department of Corrections has issued a new set of protocols for lethal injection that it believes will prevent any more botched executions. That's wishful thinking.
Despite the new procedures, the problems that arose during the Angel Diaz execution in December, which led to a five-month moratorium, could arise again. Diaz took more than twice the normal amount of time to die and appeared to some witnesses to suffer during the process. The medical examiner said of Diaz's ordeal that "none of the materials injected went to the right place." It turned out that no medically trained professional was enlisted to administer the drugs.
The department's new procedures still do not require that a doctor oversee the execution process. There would be added training for those assigned to the task, and more exacting protocols for how things should proceed, but the execution team will not have to have the kind of medical qualifications that such a highly technical process demands.
Even the report by a commission appointed by then-Gov. Jeb Bush to review Florida's lethal injection procedure said that "qualified medical personnel" are needed to perform "a humane and lawful execution." And the doctors on the commission appended a statement that the trend in the country is to require "sophisticated medical techniques and personnel to administer the lethal injection."
But because it is difficult to find doctors willing to violate their ethical code to participate, medical expertise has been eliminated from consideration.
The other key factor missing from the department's new 10-page procedure manual is any change in the chemical cocktail. Diaz may very well have experienced terrible pain during his slow death. But since one of the three drugs used in his execution is a paralyzing agent, he had no way to communicate his suffering.
The commission urged the department to explore other "more recently developed" chemicals for use in executions and to reconsider the use of any paralytic drug in order to make executions "less problematic." But the department decided to stick with the same badly flawed approach that has the potential to cause the inmate great pain.
Expanding the size of the execution room, installing cameras and requiring additional training are all worthwhile improvements. But the changes do not go far enough, and they do not make carrying out the death penalty any more humane or defensible.
[Last modified May 13, 2007, 20:42:10]
Posts
7 comments:
Honestly, I don't think the death penalty should be humane. They reserve this sentence for the worst criminals in the country. I'm not big on the eye for an eye viewpoint on criminal behavior, but when it comes to murder, I'm all for it.
Personally I think that everyone will be judged in due time. I believe in Heaven and Hell. When the time comes the painful process of lethal-injection will have no comparison. I do however feel some compassion for those that have the responsibility to condemn these men.
i think that it is wrong to kill someone. Who is a judge to say kill tham man/woman are they god. God gave us life and he should take it away. It sounds wrong but if a person is murdered i believed that everything happens for a reason. And who are we to jugde any on. a sin is a sin it is all the same to god, so let the one with out sin cast the first stone.
blah blah blah bible quote blah blah blah mispelled words blah blah another poorly related bible quote... so everything happens for a reason? so your saying that if one of your family members is brutally butchered by some psych job that you wouldn't want them to be punished? hey i know lets stick them in prison for life... but ten years from now since they behaved themselves and our prisons are so overcrowded lets just let them go... that sounds like a perfectly logical frame of mind.
I have to agree with you. There is a specific reason for separation of church and state. If one chooses to end someone’s life, than why should he be permitted to keep his life? Some, yes, make mistakes when they accidently hit someone and have to face involuntary manslaughter, but frankly, if some crazed psycho goes on a killing spree, than why should they be allowed to live and possibly see an opportunity for being let out or even live in a jail cell that us as tax payers have to pay for?
I think that you have the right of it. Why should my tax dollars go to pay for someone's stay in jail? Let the punishment fit the crime. If you kill someone and it is proven that you deliberately killed that person then you should be put to death. If it was an accident then the jury of your peers should decide what should be done.
Everyone is going to have their own opinions on this sort of thing. Mine is that the bible said clearly, "thou shalt not kill". No one has the right to take another life. If someone murdered someone else, it does not mean we have the right to do the same thing. I know the prison system is flawed terribly. They should not get out,they should not have television or anything entertaining. Perhaps they should have their own little island, like in the movie. If they kill each other then fine. Leave them there, heavily guarded from outside walls so they cannot leave the island, but otherwise not interfere with what they do. The system of prisons is what needs fixed, and people should just abolish the death penalty. What about the people who were wrongly accused and killed only for people to find out a little too late that the person was innocent?
Post a Comment