The article "The Humane Death Penalty Charade" by the Editorial Board in the NY Times discusses the constitutionality of lethal-injection and capital punishment as a whole (link to article). The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Warner v. Gross lawsuit that is fighting lethal-injection as it puts the inmates at risk of pain and suffering. Warner was convicted of rape and murdering an 11-month old child in 1997. His execution was scheduled for April last year but was postponed due to a botched lethal-injection of Clayton Lockett right before his. Lethal-injections have been deemed constitutional in the past, but currently there have been several cases against its humanity and possibility of inducing suffering and pain. Those against capital punishment do not want to find more "humane" methods, but those who support it don't care what a condemned person is going through in his final moments.
I find this to be quite interesting. As Catholics, we are supposed to fight for all lives no matter who the person is, but when I read an article discussing what sickening deeds someone does, such as Warner, makes me all for capital punishment - for certain people. I think those whose crimes are bad enough to be put on death row are there for a reason. I do feel humanity is an important part of how you kill someone, but for those who dislike lethal-injection, I find it to be possibly one of the quickest ways to get the process over with. If lethal-injection is so bad, then heck, why not go back to using the electric chair? The process is faster, and the person wouldn't feel anything that long. Honestly, I have mixed feelings from this article.
I think that a person who commits such a serious crime would almost prefer the death penalty. It might be more of a punishment to keep them in jail their whole lives and avoid this controversy, just a thought.
ReplyDelete