“Executioners will start by injecting them with a sedative called midazolam, never before used by the state, but which is supposed to render them unconscious for the two lethal drugs to follow. No one, apart from a handful of officials, knows where the drugs will come from, or who exactly will do the injecting. Those are secrets under the law. Most importantly, no one knows how well the midazolam will work, if it works at all.”
This is bullshit. Midazolam seizes the body in a rictus while giving the feeling of being “burned alive”. This is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment and thus violates the 8th Amendment. “In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), the Supreme Court commented that drawing and quartering, public dissection, burning alive, or disembowelment constituted cruel and unusual punishment.” Just because there’s no literal burning doesn’t mean that this drug is considered “safe”.
If you really want to murder people without “cruel and unusual punishment”, bring back the guillotine. But oh no, we can’t do that because BLOOD. This is insanity. There is no such thing as a clean death anymore. The drugs for lethal injection no longer exist b/c the company that makes them has decided it won’t participate in legalized murder. As a result, states have been using inferior “cocktails” that fall under “cruel and unusual punishment”.
“Capital Punishment” (aka, the sanitized language for Legalized Murder) must be outlawed. It is nothing but Revenge Killing. You can also call it Honor Killing. Hyperbole? I don’t think so.
First of all, you can’t punish someone if they’re dead. The fact that you’re sentencing someone to die is the very essence of saying, “We fear death, so death is a just punishment.” Bullshit. You can’t punish someone if they’re dead. Punishing someone by telling them they’re going to die IS a form of cruel and unusual punishment because if that person is also afraid of death, you’re terrorizing them.
Second, and to repeat, murdering someone as a means of punishment is both illogical and unconstitutional. The condemned killed someone. Or many someones. So to punish them, you’ll do the same thing?
Let’s go through this reasoning for killing a murderer by using two examples of serial killer.
- Theodore Robert Bundy
- Gary Leon Ridgway
Both Florida and Washington have the death penalty. Ridgway was given consecutive life sentences for the murder of 49 women. Bundy was given two death sentences for the murder of 3(although in total, he killed up to 30).
Why the disparity?
Well… Let’s put aside the fact that Florida is death sentence happy.
a) Bundy’s victims were “upstanding members of society”.
b) Ridgway’s victims were, primarily, street prostitutes.
Had Ridgway murdered “honorable” women, he’d have been given a death sentence. Instead, he murdered “throwaway” women (except for one woman, who was a school teacher, if memory serves).
So, for killing sorority women and a girl, Bundy gets the chair. For killing 49 prostitutes–and earning the moniker as “the most prolific serial killer in American history”–Ridgway gets to live in prison until he dies?
It doesn’t matter that the sentences were carried out in different states and that it’s up to the states to decide who gets to live or die. What matters is that there are different rules for the murder of women and girls depending on what type of women or girls they were. If they were “upstanding members of society”, i.e., they weren’t prostitutes or women/girls in the slave trade or being used as pedophile slaves, then the murderer gets the death penalty. This isn’t a hard and fast rule. Some murderers of prostitutes were given death sentences, but most weren’t. Plus, there’s also a difference in gender and sexual orientation. Kill gay boys or men? Life Sentence. Kill “regular” members of society, death sentence. That isn’t a given either (John Wayne Gacy was executed) but the majority are given life sentences.
Because the death penalty is dished out in an unbalanced way, and because many *innocent* people (mostly men) have been murdered via a death sentence, that form of punishment needs to end. When *one* innocent life is taken, then that method of punishment is no longer valid.
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, and Florida are among the worst offenders in Capital murder. They kill indiscriminately–innocent and guilty alike. Plus methods of murder qualify as cruel and unusual.
If you want the victim, the so-called guilty, to die, then kill them in as painless a method as possible: the guillotine. Sure, it may horrify them to know they’re about to get their head lopped off, but it is any more horrifying to know you’re going to get electrocuted? That you’re going to get injected with a cocktail that will cause severe pain?
All forms of “capital punishment” cause pain. If you want to commit illogical revenge by murdering someone for murdering other(s), then guillotine the bastards. But nooooo, we can’t do that. There’s a head and blood and ew, that’s gross. We need “clean” deaths. What fucking hypocrisy.