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: 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