Ohio will adopt a new (classic) execution protocol and resume executions on Jan. 12, 2017:
The state of Ohio plans to resume executions in 2017 with a new three-drug combination. The state will use the drugs midazolam, rocuronium bromide and potassium chloride. To make the switch the state is expected to adopt [a] new execution protocol by the end of the week. The state hasn't executed anyone since January 2014.
The new drug mix is really a return to one the state used for 10 years. "The department used a similar combination from 1999 to 2009, and last year, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the use of this specific three-drug combination," said JoEllen Smith, a spokeswoman for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Ohio has had trouble getting drugs to use for lethal injections in part because pharmaceutical companies don't want their medical products used for killing people. Two years ago European pharmaceutical companies blocked further sales on moral and legal grounds. Ohio has looked for other options, but all have obstacles.
For background, Wikipedia offers: Midazolam, rocuronium bromide, and potassium chloride.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:29PM
I can see both sides of this issue, for and against capital punishment.
Pro: Prison is not supposed to be about revenge. It is partially punishment (which should be administered objectively, as a deterrent), and partly about rehabilitation. If you have someone who is so dangerous that they can never again be released, then they have no place in prison, because punishment is irrelevant and rehabilitation is not possible. Best to just remove them permanently.
Con: Justice, especially in cases of extreme violence, is seldom so objective. Victims want revenge. The media frenzy makes an objective trial difficult. Perhaps especially in these cases, human attempts at justice have been shown to be fallible. A shocking number of death-row inmates have been exonerated. [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
Regardless, if you're going to do it, do it right. The botched executions in the US are just bizarre. Every veterinarian is able to euthanize animals. [petmd.com] Many people accompany their pets on this last journey, so we would know if problems were common - they quite obviously are not. The same drugs that work on animals also work on people. They are available. They can obviously be used without screw-ups. What's the problem?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:12PM
Once you realize that the sick fucking authoritarians that are in favor of executions want people to suffer, it all makes sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:11PM
The condemned didn't seem to mind how much their victims suffered. Karma is a bitch.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:46PM
Except for those who end up exonerated, sometimes posthumously.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:09PM
And those who might actually have cared about their "victim" dying in a quick painless way.
Not all killers are bloodthirsty monsters.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:25PM
I can see both sides of this issue, for and against capital punishment.
Pro: Prison is not supposed to be about revenge. It is partially punishment (which should be administered objectively, as a deterrent), and partly about rehabilitation. If you have someone who is so dangerous that they can never again be released, then they have no place in prison, because punishment is irrelevant and rehabilitation is not possible. Best to just remove them permanently.
As has been pointed out many times, no convicted killer, executed for the crime(s) he/she has committed, has ever killed anyone else.
However, there are serious problems with both the decision-making and implementation processes in death penalty cases.
Con: Justice, especially in cases of extreme violence, is seldom so objective. Victims want revenge. The media frenzy makes an objective trial difficult. Perhaps especially in these cases, human attempts at justice have been shown to be fallible. A shocking number of death-row inmates have been exonerated.
As you point out, the error rate in murder convictions is shockingly high. That alone, IMHO, is a good enough reason not to employ the death penalty. While not enshrined in law, Blackstone's Formulation [wikipedia.org]:
is an affirmation of both a respect for human life and dignity, and the understanding that we, as humans, are imperfect and make mistakes of judgement.
I'd add another item to the "con" section. This relates to "punishment." As was (quite correctly, IMHO) pointed out by Clint Eastwood in "Unforgiven" [wikipedia.org]: "It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have." Why should someone who took the life of another be granted the sweet release of death, rather than be forced to live with the consequences of their actions for the rest of their lives?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather die than spend even a significant portion of the rest of my life in an 8'x8' box. I suspect that's true for most folks.
As such, it seems to me that executing murderers is misguided in that once you've executed them, you can't release someone who is later exonerated and, if they're guilty, they should have to live a long time with the consequences of their actions.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:59PM
Con: We have an alarmingly high rate of false convictions. You can't un-kill someone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:45PM
The botched executions in the US are just bizarre.
Not so bizarre when you realise the issues involved. Try getting the drugs to do it painlessly? The companies making the drugs won't sell them if they are to be used for executions, its bad for their reputation. Try getting medically trained personnel to administer the drugs, which of them will do it? Besides it is against the hypocratic oath.
You missed out a couple of major cons as well:
1) It is about 3 times more expensive to execute someone than lock them up for life. (This is primarily due to the cost of the legal processes involved, which despite the cost of them can still result in the innocent being murdered by the state).
2) Its fucking barbaric, seriously! It isn't something that should happen in a civilised country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:13PM
It isn't something that happens in a civilised countries.
FTTY