Barbaric

[Toni]

The base of the problem is there is no simple, clean, and easy way to kill a person. We have spent the past couple centuries trying to invent one. Decapitation had been the standard and it was quick and easy, but definitely not clean, even when done by a machine and not an ax. Hanging(with the intention of quick death), electrocution(a word coined to describe the process) and poison gas, are all fairly modern. The advantage of decapitation and hanging is it's pretty much a one man operation. The rope maker or the ax maker are far removed from the process. The problem with lethal injection is the pharmaceutical companies who are asked to supply the injectable don't want to be associated with using drugs which kill people, for obvious reasons. It becomes a supply chain problem. This leads to amateur chemists, most with a high school education having to concoct a lethal potion. Things like LD50 and body mass are not the sort of thing covered in 11th grade science classes. There's no practical way to test anything, so the results can be unexpected.

I don't agree with portions of your post. We see a simple, clean, and easy way to kill a person/people in the news all the time, fentanyl/opiates. It's lethal at small doses, has multiple options for low tech delivery and apparently the US has abundant quantities (probably in every state with execution) not tied to pharmaceutical co.

Drug overdose deaths often are preceded by convulsions which give witnesses the heebie jeebies.

For some reason, the Founding Fathers put the phrase "cruel and unusual" in the Constitution. This eliminated impaling, breaking on the wheel, and, drawing and quartering, which were unusual punishments, reserved for the most deserved. If everyone is treated the same, nothing unusual about it. This leaves the very vague concept of cruel. The fight to eliminate Capitol punishment has always pivoted on the idea that there is no non-cruel way to kill a person, even if the cruelty consists only of them knowing they will soon die.

The fight against the death penalty has also involved the inequity of who is sentenced to death, with persons of color being far more likely to receive the death penalty for similar offenses for which white people received lesser sentences.

It isn't race. It's money. The justice system is strongly biased against the poor.

And the notoriety of the crime matters.

Money and notoriety play roles, of course.

Race and money are still very much linked. And yes, because of systemic racism that has benefited you and me.

Race | Death Penalty Information Center

Use of the death penalty has always reflected racial bias: the data show that who is prosecuted, sentenced, and executed depends heavily on race.

deathpenaltyinfo.org

In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.

- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990

 

[DBT]

What is the point of executing prisoners who may have spent decades on death row? They don't pose a threat to society and have not done so for a long time. A matter of principle? Seen to be carrying out justice? Does it even set a good example ethically?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

No.

 

[Bronzeage]

What is the point of executing prisoners who may have spent decades on death row? They don't pose a threat to society and have not done so for a long time. A matter of principle? Seen to be carrying out justice? Does it even set a good example ethically?

You won't meet a lot of moral philosophers in the Republican Party. Executing a person who has spent decades in prison is a performative act. They want to appear to be tough on crime, while happily overlooking a President who will pardon anyone who has a million dollars.

In their view, it was a liberal Supreme Court which made it so difficult to impose the death penalty, so killing someone who is no longer a threat to anyone is just another act of "owning the libs". There's not a lot more thought put than that. As I said, no moral philosophers.

 

[Tharmas]

I was unclear. It seems he was on his deathbed and requested a dose of a particular amount, and the Mrs obliged, and gave a second dose an hour later. That was around noon. Huxley expired about five hours later. She wrote an account of that day called This Timeless Moment.

That makes sense. 6000 doses does not.
Thinking further I’d estimate that I ingested about 25-30 mg
(100-120 ‘normal’doses) that one time. Had I not been already very familiar with the effects, it could have been a very bad experience.

Eloxer, O'm not sure what "mg" refers to in your post. Is it mcg or something else?

 

[Elixir]

not sure what "mg" refers to in your post.

Milligrams.