Lethal Injection

[Peter]

Today, Hill v. McDonaugh was decided - the actual issue decided was highly technical and not really worthy of deep discussion.

Hill's allegation surrounding the lethal injection method was summarised in Kennedy's opinion and is reproduced below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(citations omitted)

[Peter]

Whilst I'm quite sure that if one had an unanaesthetised heart attack, it would hurt quite a bit (this is basically what Hill alleges would happen), the suggestion that actually dying wouldn't hurt is in my opinion a bit silly. We have no way of knowing how much pain is involved in the actual termination of one's existence (as opposed to the events that lead up to it).

The Constitution clearly embraces the possibility of a death penalty, and I don't think it would categorically only allow its use when it wouldn't hurt because I would think all forms of dying hurt.

The Constitution's sole prohibition is on cruel and unusual punishment as opposed to painful punishment. Whilst certainly the two are not mutually exclusive, provided the execution is suitably swift, I don't believe a constitutional violation occurs.

Burning at the stake or beating to death often takes a while, and I think the specter of any form of public execution would also be a violation as it has been unpractised for so long.

Death by firing squad poses some problems because death is not necessarily that swift. Provided somebody shoots into the head from point blank range within a minute, I would probably let it pass.

Obviously there is a good argument for making sure

[Peter]

Absolutely, but it depends what sort of firing squad. If its about 10 soldiers from several metres away, then there is no guarantee that you kill him with the first volley, hence it is problematic. If you put a gun to his temple and fire, thats almost bound to be instantaneous and is fine.

Unlike the guilotine, lethal injection, the gas chamber or the chair, there is no guarantee regarding consistency.