I saw someone bring up lethal injections in another topic, and I thought I would make a debate question about it.
For debates sake, let's relegate this solely to the United States.
The 8th (I belive) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Currently in the US, a few states are debating about whether to get rid of lethal injection as a method of execution on these grounds. Do you believe that lethal injection violates the Constitution?
Keep in mind we're not debating about the moral correctness of the death penalty, only whether or not lethal injection breaks the Constitution.
Discuss.
--My opinion is that yes, lethal injection does indeed break the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Constitution. I base this on the fact that there is a lot that goes up to an execution that a lot of people are not aware of. Prior to being executed, an inmate is put onto death row and given a date of execution. At no point in time is this date solid - many inmates are actually led into the building where they're going to be executed and given their final meal/time with their family, only to have their execution pushed back due to the pardons system, etc. Imagine being led into the building you're going to be executed in and then being told "oh, just kidding, you're going to have to wait a while longer".
However, for the most part I believe it's cruel and unusual because of the injection itself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are two things injected into a prisoner that kills them. The first drug that is injected paralyzes the inmate, so that they cannot "feel any pain". However, some Wardens administering the injection admit that this first part of the injection series is more for the spectators than for the inmate. It paralyzes the victim so they cannot make any expressions or movements and has little or no affect ont he ability of the person to feel. The second part of the injection is the part that kills you - it slows and eventually stops your heart. However, if the inmate is feeling any pain during this part of the execution there is no way for him/her to communicate this since they've been paralyzed. This is where I think it crosses the line. If something, anything, should go wrong in the injection series there is absolutely no way for the inmate to communicate something is wrong.
On another note, I used to be very pro-death penalty. I'm still sort of for the death penalty, but upon reading the book "Death of Innocents" by Helen Prejean I believe that the way we do things needs to seriously be revamped. If you want a good look at the death penalty system in America, this is the book to read.
As this is a debate section, any and all opinions are welcome - so long as you back them up with logic
For debates sake, let's relegate this solely to the United States.
The 8th (I belive) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Currently in the US, a few states are debating about whether to get rid of lethal injection as a method of execution on these grounds. Do you believe that lethal injection violates the Constitution?
Keep in mind we're not debating about the moral correctness of the death penalty, only whether or not lethal injection breaks the Constitution.
Discuss.
--My opinion is that yes, lethal injection does indeed break the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Constitution. I base this on the fact that there is a lot that goes up to an execution that a lot of people are not aware of. Prior to being executed, an inmate is put onto death row and given a date of execution. At no point in time is this date solid - many inmates are actually led into the building where they're going to be executed and given their final meal/time with their family, only to have their execution pushed back due to the pardons system, etc. Imagine being led into the building you're going to be executed in and then being told "oh, just kidding, you're going to have to wait a while longer".
However, for the most part I believe it's cruel and unusual because of the injection itself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are two things injected into a prisoner that kills them. The first drug that is injected paralyzes the inmate, so that they cannot "feel any pain". However, some Wardens administering the injection admit that this first part of the injection series is more for the spectators than for the inmate. It paralyzes the victim so they cannot make any expressions or movements and has little or no affect ont he ability of the person to feel. The second part of the injection is the part that kills you - it slows and eventually stops your heart. However, if the inmate is feeling any pain during this part of the execution there is no way for him/her to communicate this since they've been paralyzed. This is where I think it crosses the line. If something, anything, should go wrong in the injection series there is absolutely no way for the inmate to communicate something is wrong.
On another note, I used to be very pro-death penalty. I'm still sort of for the death penalty, but upon reading the book "Death of Innocents" by Helen Prejean I believe that the way we do things needs to seriously be revamped. If you want a good look at the death penalty system in America, this is the book to read.
As this is a debate section, any and all opinions are welcome - so long as you back them up with logic
