Capitalism

Drug Company Declares National Death Penalty Moratorium?

|

Hospira Inc. is the world's only FDA-approved manufacturer of the potentially-deadly (and otherwise sort of useless) anesthetic used in lethal injection executions. And according to this article in USA Today, they have stopped selling that drug, at least for now:

"We are working to get it back onto the market for our customers as soon as possible," Hospira spokesman Dan Rosenberg said.

But at least one death penalty expert was skeptical of Hospira's explanation, noting that the company has made it clear it objects to using its drugs for executions. Hospira also makes the two other chemicals used in lethal injections…

Last spring, Hospira, a publicly traded company, sent a letter to all states outlining its discomfort with the use of its drugs for executions, as it has done periodically.

"Hospira provides these products because they improve or save lives and markets them solely for use as indicated on the product labeling," Kees Groenhout, clinical research and development vice president, said in a March 31 letter to Ohio, obtained by the AP. "As such, we do not support the use of any of our products in capital punishment procedures."

Because any change to the lethal injection formula would probably mean a costly lawsuit from death-penalty opponents (supposedly-humane lethal injection is already controversial enough), simply by taking one of the drugs off the market, Hospira can create a years-long death row bottleneck in all of the 35 states that use their chemicals. It's unclear if Hospira is actively protesting the use of its products in lethal injections, or if this is just a temporary interruption to a no-doubt burgeoning global trade in sodium thiopental. Either way, a single private company has the ability to halt all lethal injections in the United States, at least for a while.

NEXT: Reason.tv: Why It's Time to Legalize Poker - David "Doc" Sands on Gambling, Pot, and Freedom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wierd this is showing up on my RSS feed, but not the actual H&R Blog.

    1. Shift+reload?

      1. The post went up on the main blog at 3:12pm — I posted my comment at 2:42pm — can my computer see the future?

        maybe.

  2. Did someone call someone a sheepfucker?

    Why are there no comments to this article?

    1. I call him a chickenfucker!

      1. “The behavior by these commenters is threatening our ability to keep comments enabled at Hit & Run.”

  3. could a .45 caliber bullet to the back of the skull be considered a lethal injection of a heavy metal (Pb)?

  4. “Hospira can create a years-long death row bottleneck in all of the 35 states that use their chemicals.”

    Those states can just switch back to using the electric chair.

    Problem solved.

    1. The problem is the state killing its citizens.

      Problem not solved.

      1. Problem not even addressed.

      2. “The problem is the state killing its citizens.”

        That is a matter of opinion.

        Personally, I think executing someone who is guilty of murder is perfectly legitimate.

        1. I think fucking know the government is not moral or competent enough to determine if somebody is guilty of murder.

          1. So you think everyone convicted of murder was actually innocent?

            1. So you think everyone convicted of murder was actually guilty?

              1. No but I think there is nothing wrong with executing those who are actually guilty.

                1. And how do you know this for sure? Boy, it’s easy to be bloodthirsty from your armchair.

                  1. Especially if it’s a Kamfy Chair.

                  2. There are cases where the physical evidence of guilt is pretty overwhelming.

                    It’s not like everyone convicted of murder is some innocent person who is being railroaded.

                    1. So you’re ok with the rare innocent person being executed anyway.

                      How’s your armchair?

                    2. Well now if the physical evidence of guilt is overwhelming, then that person isn’t actually innocent, is he?

                    3. Clearly you don’t know much about how our justice system works.

                    4. Classic sophistry, free of charge!

                      ClubMedSux|9.28.10 @ 3:46PM|#
                      “So you think everyone convicted of murder was actually guilty?”

                      Episiarch|9.28.10 @ 4:01PM|#
                      “So you’re ok with the rare innocent person being executed anyway.”

                      SugarFree|9.28.10 @ 4:09PM|#
                      “So you’re fine with a few innocent people being put to death.”

                    5. Obsessed troll is obsessed.

                    6. I don’t think anyone is obtuse enough to actually argue Gilbert Martin’s position seriously. Then again, I tend to overestimate people’s abilities.

                    7. I do support the death penalty for trolls.

                    8. I do support the death penalty for trolls.

                      And trolling is easier to prove than murder, so WATCH OUT!

            2. So you think everyone convicted of murder was actually innocent?

              Well, no, I don’t. But I do know an uncomfortably large number of people on death row have been exonerated through DNA tests, etc.

              I have nothing against the death penalty in principle, but I still would want to make sure we were frying the right guy. So I favor a moratorium on the practice until the court system can improve it’s aim.

          2. That’s why it’s required that juries determine it, not judges.

            1. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

              What he said.

          3. But they are moral or competent enough to lock someone in a cell for their entire life? I will take the death penalty over life in super max any day. And even if I am some day proven innocent, there is no getting back what I have lost.

            No one in the world is morally competent to do any of this stuff. But it has to be done.

            1. “No one in the world is morally competent to do any of this stuff. But it has to be done.” Very well said.

              The founders put the jury system in place for a very good reason. The bottom line is we have imperfect knowledge, we will let some guilty go free and we will punish some innocent. Libertarians, particularly here at Reason, do a very good job trying to minimize those errors. But unilaterally removing some punishments because they will sometimes hit the innocent doesn’t make a lot of sense.

              1. So you’re fine with a few innocent people being put to death.

                “Oops. Sucks for you, dude.”

                1. So you’re fine with a few innocent people being put to death.

                  Are you fine with innocent people spending the last 50-60 years of their lives in rape-land?

                  1. Yes, that’s exactly what I said. And that’s the secret motive behind me being against the death penalty… to see innocent people rot in jail. Away! I have been discovered!

                    Are you being an idiot on purpose?

            2. No, the death penalty is pretty damn optional. And permanent, unlike incarceration. Pencils have erasers and all that.

              1. No, the death penalty is pretty damn optional. And permanent, unlike incarceration.

                Really? You send someone to prison at age 20, and then find out at age 50 that they were innocent all along.

                The prime of their life is gone. PERMANENTLY. Not minimizing the badness of executing innocent people, but if the justice system is coming to the wrong decisions about serious crimes then eliminating the death penalty does NOT solve the problem.

            3. Why does it (i.e. the death penalty) have to be done? From a utilitarian perspective, what’s the difference between execution and life incarceration other than the fact that it costs more?

              I understand that some may actually prefer death over life in a supermax, but that’s not for us to decide as a policy matter. For me it’s simple: you can free somebody after wrongfully sentencing them to life without parole; you can’t resurrect somebody wrongfully executed. As for the horrible treatment in prison, well that’s a reason to reform our penal system, NOT a reason to support capital punishment.

              1. From a utilitarian perspective, what’s the difference between execution and life incarceration other than the fact that it costs more?

                Greater deterrence. Hence all the plea bargains by murderers willing to take life sentences, the endless lawyering by death row inmates to avoid execution, etc.

                1. Greater deterrence. Hence all the plea bargains by murderers willing to take life sentences, the endless lawyering by death row inmates to avoid execution, etc.

                  1. Can you prove that the Death Penalty has a deterrent effect? Do you have any evidence other than your own personal feelings?

                  2. Your example definitely does not prove what you think it proves. What exactly is being deterred? The examples you cite are a deterrent to the accused to going to trial to clear their name.

                  Copping a plea to take the death penalty off the table doesn’t deter anyone from committing a crime (nor is it an example of any deterrence of committing a crime).

                  Or do you mean it deters accused from taking their chances at trial because the irreversible punishment is too high a risk even if you are truly innocent?

                  Your “deterrence” examples are actually a point against the death penalty (and a subject that Reason has covered quite a bit — i.e. excessively charging accused criminals to get them to cop to a lesser charge and avoid trial). An innocent person being accused might be willing to cop a plea because taking their chance at trial is too risky.

                  People have been convicted of capitol crimes on nothing more than the say so of an eye witness while eye-witness testimony is one of the least sound form of evidence there is. It’s pretty obvious why lots of innocents might cop a plea and take the DP off the table. And it has NOTHING to do with deterring crime.

              2. Personally I would want the death penalty, because nobody gives a shit about the people in for life, but if you are sentenced to death they’ll knock themselves out trying to save you.

              3. Why does it (i.e. the death penalty) have to be done? From a utilitarian perspective, what’s the difference between execution and life incarceration other than the fact that it costs more?

                What’s the point of life imprisonment then? Say a guy beats the shit out of his girlfriend and her parents when he’s 20; can you plausibly argue that keeping him in prison at age 80 is protecting society?

                The purpose of capital punishment, and indeed all punishment, is not only protection of society and deterrence but retribution. If you deny the importance of retribution you have to rethink our entire penal system from the ground up.

                1. Actually, a very good idea.

              4. hy does it (i.e. the death penalty) have to be done? From a utilitarian perspective, what’s the difference between execution and life incarceration other than the fact that it costs more?

                1) It precludes some liberal douche bag letting them out in the future.

                2) It prevents crimes that they would commit while incarcerated.

                3) It’s only more expensive because our judicial system is completely fucked up.

          4. the government is not moral or competent enough to determine if somebody is guilty of murder

            Please, it’s the people’s laws, and the people on the jury itself, that you have a beef with, not “the government.” Are you saying that they (the people) can never, under any circumstances, regardless of the facts of reality presented, determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant? Your conflict may be epistemological, not political.

            1. How many times has Radley documented prosecutors lying/withholding evidence?

              Even if the jury is capable of determining guilt, there may be other factors involved. Death is permanent, but lying prosecutors aren’t.

              1. Certainly. That’s why there is the (concept of the) “beyond reasonable doubt” clause in the jury’s instructions, and years if not decades of appeals before a defendant is finally brought to justice. Do you have a problem with the definition of “justice” (the death penalty) in this case, or rather whether a jury of humans can ever know the truth?

                1. If evidence weren’t regularly falsified, if exculpatory evidence weren’t illegally and unethically suppressed, if prosecutors didn’t view convictions as a matter of filling a numerical quota and a political end rather than a matter of justice, if exculpatory evidence that is uncovered post-conviction weren’t fought tooth and nail. . .maybe a death penalty wouldn’t be so bad.

                  But until those things stop happening, it’s better to lock people up for life, just so there is an undo button when the government screws up.

                2. 1) A jury of humans can never know the truth.

                  2) We have seen exonerations as long as 20, 30 years after conviction or more. Death penalty candidates would be, uh, dead, at that point.

                  At what point are you sure enough, absolutely and positively, that you can kill someone? And do you have the balls to do it yourself, or do you just let the state do it for you as a proxy?

                  1. If you’re asking me, I think all death penalties should be handled by a gladiatorial match. If the convict can defeat the professional executioner/swordfighter, then he can live for another year in prison.

                  2. “1) A jury of humans can never know the truth.”

                    Really?

                    What if some has been clearly recorded on a video surveillance camera as shooting a victim point blank in the head at a conveinence store and the cops catch him red handed on his way out the door?

                  3. Episiarch|9.28.10 @ 4:17PM|#
                    “A jury of humans can never know the truth.”

                    The truth can never be known? Reality is unknowable? Then all your arguments are spurious, if not dishonest, unless you hold yourself above mere humanity.

                    1. Life imprisonment is likely cheaper than executing the death penalty. It also allows for the very human possibility of error in the conviction and provides an opportunity to correct such errors. Also, death lets the criminal off the hook, at least as far as this life is concerned, leaving aside questions of metaphysics for the moment.

                    2. Life imprisonment is likely cheaper than executing the death penalty.

                      Not true.

                      Life imprisonment is a luxury for wealthy societies.

                      Would a post-apocalyptic society use execution or life imprisonment to punish murder?

                    3. Life imprisonment is likely cheaper than executing the death penalty.

                      Only because of (1) the extravagant appeals process afforded to those on death row and (2) the super-controlled sissified way that we conduct executions because we’ve developed a distaste for guillotines, hanging, and firing squads, each of which is cheap and almost painless if done by a skilled professional.

                      If you want to save money by doing away with (1), the result is going to be a lot more innocent people rotting in jail for the rest of their lives after they exhaust the normal appeals process.

                    4. Nice try, Mr. Hyperbole. If a jury was not there, the best they can ever do is be pretty sure that they know the truth, but they are fallible. There is always the possibility of a mistake, or deception. If you say otherwise, you’re either an idiot or a liar. And since there is always the possibility of error, the only moral option is to not use the death penalty, because if a mistake or deception is found to have occurred, attempts at reversal can be made.

                      If you killed them, it’s done. But hey, if you’re cool with that, you be an armchair executioner.

                    5. And since there is always the possibility of error, the only moral option is to not use the death penalty, because if a mistake or deception is found to have occurred, attempts at reversal can be made.

                      So it is immoral to take any action that might result in death if there is any possibility of error?

                      Imagine applying that to fighting wars.

                    6. If we go post-apocalyptic or are in the middle of combat, then shoot to thrill. But we aren’t talking about either of those situations.

                    7. Imagine applying that to fighting wars.

                      Non-sequitur much?

                      Also is the war standard really the standard we want applying to civilized society and law and order?

                      Seriously, I don’t want my LEOs acting/thinking like an army at war. That mentality is a big part of the problems.

                    8. So it is immoral to take any action that might result in death if there is any possibility of error?

                      Imagine applying that to fighting wars.

                      Or driving.

                      Is absolute 100% safety now the liberaltarian ideal?

                    9. Episiarch|9.28.10 @ 5:14PM|#
                      “If you say otherwise, you’re either an idiot or a liar.”

                      Finally! Some good old-fashioned Episiarchian name-calling!

                      (I predict the House Troll will call me a troll.)

                    10. How about this: Truth can never be known, with the exception of some statements about the know-ability of truth.

                  4. I have the balls to do it myself.

                    Now, if it wouldn’t be considered “cruel and unusual” to lock convicted (capital) murderers in a metal cubes 24x7x365.25 with no recreation or interaction with humanity until they shuffle off this mortal coil I could probably get on board with life sentences instead of capital punishment.

              2. Don’t forget to give a big shout out to all the cops who suddenly “remember” new and dispositive facts on the stand.

                1. Testilying!

                  Criminals suck, especially sociopaths. But executing them when our system and the people in our system are not only error prone but biased towards gaming the system. . .not good.

                  1. Waa! Episiarch is mean to me! [pout]

                    Any replies to this comment will most likely consist of ad homs, as libertarians concede my points and show their childish, anti-intellectual nature.

                    1. Huzzah! Lose an argument, and out come the spoofs! I love it!

                    2. Spoofed twice in a row. I love it!

                    3. “Lose an argument”? What argument have you attempted to make, exactly? All I see is a sad little whiner who thinks it’s far cleverer than it really is.

                      Congratulations, you’ve managed to be Max without the profanity. Make sure they know in time to include that in the alumni newsletter.

                    4. Spoof troll is spoofing.

      3. The problem is the state killing its citizens.

        Problem not solved.

        That is a tradition in this country for over three centuries.

        1. People who appeal to tradition should have a tub of leeches dumped on them the next time they go to an emergency room for anything.

          1. You do realize that the efficacy of leeching, under some circumstances, has been vindicated by contemporary medicine?*

            *Not your silly and hyperbolic instance of dumping a tub of leeches, of course. But that goes without saying. Doesn’t it?

            1. This is really boring. You may return to being beneath my notice.

              1. Notice troll is noticing.

          2. Would you have recommended that punishment for Hayek? He was rather respectful of tradition.

            1. The long tradition of an unethical act doesn’t make it ethical to indulge in. State-sanctioned murder, rape and theft have long traditions too. Press gangs had a long tradition. Piracy against civilians in order to attack their parent government had a long tradition.

              A bad tradition is evidence of nothing except the past’s poor understanding of an ethical or moral truth.

              And, for the record… the innocence part of the death penalty troubles me, but my real objection is that the state should never have the ability to take a life of its own citizens legitimized.

              Death is an irreparable harm. Despite the inadequacies of repair available for someone who has been in jail for multiple decades the possibility of repair exists, no matter how remote. Justice only exists as a possibility for the living.

              1. And, for the record… the innocence part of the death penalty troubles me, but my real objection is that the state should never have the ability to take a life of its own citizens legitimized.

                What about state sanctioned/authorized of it’s citizens when they are labeled terrorists? Im think of Anwar Al-Awlaki who is a us born citizen who is on out nations kill list.

                1. CT,

                  Use the search function and find a thread where I condone kill-lists. Or torture. Or extraordinary rendition. Or the war in Iraq. Go on.

                  1. Use the search function and find a thread where I condone kill-lists. Or torture. Or extraordinary rendition. Or the war in Iraq. Go on.

                    SF,

                    I wasn’t implying you condoned any of that. I was merely asking your opinion.

                    Please remove the chip from your shoulder.

    2. Some guy in Utah was recently done in by a firing squad.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/us/19death.html

      1. Firing squads are much more humane than either lethal injection or the e?ectic chair.

        1. E?ectic chair? Sounds vaguely kinky…

          1. You put yor dick in the ? and then just lay back…

          2. What I truly fear is the eclectic chair.

            1. Me too. Who knows what that damn thing might do to you.

              1. Like a Lazy Gun?

                1. Not exactly, but equally unpredictable.

            2. I fear the electric slide. Damn you to hell, wedding DJs!

        2. I think you are probably right about the humaneness of firing squad vs. lethal injection. The reason people don’t like it is because it is icky and messy. Lethal injection is so appealing of an option because people can pretend that it is something like a medical procedure and seems clean. I think that if we are to have executions it should be done in a very gruesome and messy way so that people have no illusions about what they are doing. My personal proposal for an execution method is to have the condemned’s head crushed by a 16 to weight dropped from a reasonable height. Nice and gruesome, but, since the brain is pretty much instantly destroyed, it should be quite painless.

          1. The guillotine is pretty painless too.

  5. I’ve always kinda wondered why they didn’t just use a massive dose of morphine. A big enough dose would take down and elephant and I don’t think you could argue any pain was involved….

    Not that I think the death penalty is a good thing, I’m just curious…

    1. They should euthanize people the same way they euthanize whales…

      KA-BOOM!

      1. You left out the tasty eating. We don’t do that with humans. Yet.

      2. With harpoons?

        1. Not just any harpoons. Explosive harpoons! Haven’t you watched Whale Wars? The world is a vampire. Humans are a virus.

          1. Humans are AIDS to be more specific.

            And not Jared’s kind.

    2. I’ve always thought that a massive opiate overdose would be the best way to die–you supposedly just drift off to sleep. It also suppresses the respiratory drive, so none of that gasping for air that lethal injection causes either.

      1. Or at the very least, carbon monoxide poisoning. Anyone who claims that they are looking for a “humane” way to execute people is just full of shit when those two obvious options are never tried.

        1. The other thing is that anesthesiologists have to go to some lengths to make sure patients don’t die while unconscious. Should be trivially easy to make that “go wrong.”

  6. This is a nice example of a private company addressing a serious public problem. I’m glad Hospira finally got tired of their objections being ignored.

    1. Now they just need to bring along the ammunition, rope, and blade industries with them and they might put an end to capital punishment.

      Or they can just bet on our elected leaders being pussies.

  7. Perfect time for the free-market to step up and offer solutions.

    Abdul’s Discount Guillotines are guranteed to provide painless executions. If you get one complaint, we’ll refund the purchase price.

  8. As far as I know, none of the drugs in the death penalty cocktail are patented, so it would be easy-peasy to find another supplier.

    For the life of me, I don’t know why they use that cocktail. There are any number of drugs that, in a sufficiently high dose, will kill you painlessly. The cocktail seems like an unnecessary complication, an invitation to error.

    1. If i recall, when Ohio was fighting a “cruel and unusual” challenge to the death penalty, one of the reasons they stated that they used that cocktail was because everyone else used it, and therefore it was presumably not cruel and unusual.

      You’re probably right about other drugs being more effective, but no one wants to be the early adopter in facing the inevitable constitutional challenge.

    2. how else do you ensure God has the final word on whether the injection works or not?

    3. how else do you ensure God has the final word on whether the injection works or not?

    4. Overseas pharmacies might be an option. Or, they could switch to a combination of Viagra and nitrates and trigger a heart attack.

    5. For the life of me, I don’t know why they use that cocktail.

      One word:

      Government.

    6. As far as I know, none of the drugs in the death penalty cocktail are patented, so it would be easy-peasy to find another supplier.

      The article implies that the drugs are approved and regulated by the FDA.

      Which is to say that finding another manufacturer would require a lot of paperwork to prove that they could produce these drugs in a way that makes them safe for use on people…

      You can’t make this stuff up.

  9. Hospira Inc. is the world’s only FDA-approved manufacturer of the potentially-deadly (and otherwise sort of useless) anesthetic used in lethal injection executions.

    I’m sort of confused by this statement. Is this sarcasm? Because the link (and the rest of your post) says that these drugs are actually quite useful. Unless you like being awake during surgery.

    1. Unless you like being awake during surgery.

      How else do you keep an eye on those pervert doctors?

      1. “Hey, I’m in here to have my appendix removed. Not a colonoscopy. Zip up.”

  10. if the state absolutely must execute people from time to time, but it’s supposed to be all “humane” & shit, i really don’t understand why a .45 to the back of the skull isn’t the way to go…seriously, what’s quicker & more painless than that? certainly not any sort of poison injection, certainly not ol’ sparky…is it an aesthetics thing? i mean, you’re killin’ this (possibly deserving) sumbitch, but you’re gonna get all squeamish about cleaning up a little brain, after he’s already voided his bowels, head caught on fire, or any of that other mess? executing people w/ a slug to the dome too “execution style” for somebodys tender sensibilities? i really don’t get it…

    1. It’s exactly the esthetic issue, but nobody wants to admit it. I think there was a blog post about this a month or so ago.
      The ‘cocktail’ method was proposed by some guy (not in the mood to google it right now) and it caught on, despite the fact that there are other more ‘humane’ methods, including other drugs. I don’t know what vets use to ‘put animals to sleep’ but from what my friends who’ve had to have their pets euthanized tell me, it seems pretty peaceful.
      Not that I trust the state to do this in the first place–I actually don’t. And, as we’ve seen, they never seem to get it right, either in the choice of victims or in the method of execution. But why are we surprised?

      1. Not that I trust the state to do this in the first place–I actually don’t. And, as we’ve seen, they never seem to get it right, either in the choice of victims or in the method of execution.

        But when it comes to everything else, the state is awesome, right?

        Typical.

      2. I recall my vet told me it was an overdose of barbiturates that they use on animals. But I was pretty distracted at the time, so that may not be accurate.

        1. I’ve seen them put down by massive injection of sodium pentothal right to the heart.

          1. Episiarch|9.28.10 @ 4:35PM|#
            “I’ve seen them put down by massive injection of sodium pentothal right to the heart.”

            And you didn’t faint? You are made of sterner stuff than the concern trolls make you out to be. Color me impressed or really gullible.

        2. Yeah, and one of the trade names for the drug is “Succumb.”

          My veterinarian ex-girlfriend and her colleagues used to joke about this a lot.

      3. It’s exactly the esthetic issue, but nobody wants to admit it. I think there was a blog post about this a month or so ago.

        People today are too squeamish.

        It was not even a hundred years ago that people would flock to see public hangings.

        1. Libertarians talk a good talk, but when it comes to actual self-defense (killing someone, for instance), I’ll bet most of them would poo their panties.

          1. Why? Self defense is one of the most reflexive and natural actions for human beings.

    2. The answer has more to do with the psychology of disgust than with a reasonable answer. It’s the same reason that partial birth abortion is murder to people, but killing the exact same baby by a standard method is not. One is “gross.”

      1. ummm…just out of morbid curiousity, what do you mean by “standard baby-killing method”? & why wouldn’t it be murder?

        1. I think he means the difference between killing it in the womb vs. pulling it part way out before killing it.

          1. ahhh…i get it now, thanks…Life’s a trip, in this interim i had a hearttoheart disscusion w/ a longtime female friend about a earlyterm abortion she was quite upset by…for the record, it’s not murder imo, it’s a damn shame but then, so’s lots of things…
            “Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?”

  11. “Either way, a single private company has the ability to halt all lethal injections in the United States, at least for a while.”

    No they don’t. It is governments that are halting it. They still make bullets don’t they?

  12. Why do I have this weird feeling that someday Armin Rosen will be found on a web server calling everyone to the right of the late Ted Kennedy “ratfuckers”?

  13. This is great news. Maybe I can finally shake those neo-Nazi affiliations and once again be able to afford to drink 40 cups of coffee and smoke 100 cigarettes a day.

  14. Do a little research Armin. Sodium thiopental is just the anesthetic used to induce coma. It isn’t the agent that actually causes death. That would be a mixture of pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. There’s no reason the sodium thiopental can’t be replaced by propofol.

    1. Propofol: Go Out The Michael Jackson Way

      1. People like a close connection with fame, SF. Not sure why, but they do, so your slogan might make the prospect more appealing for some.

    2. Do a little research yourself. It’s the ONLY chemical that Ohio uses – they don’t use the three drug cocktail you’re referring to…
      http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution

      Scroll down to Ohio:
      “Lethal injection is the sole method. In November 2009, they adoped a one-drug protocol, using only sodium pentathol.”

      And if you check here:
      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..id=9277599

      you’ll see:
      The single-drug procedure was implemented to end legal challenges to the widely-used three-drug protocol, which critics claim causes severe pain.

      1. Just in case there’s confusion in the naming discrepancy above:

        “Sodium thiopental, better known as Sodium Pentothal…”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_thiopental

      2. “a single private company has the ability to halt all lethal injections in the United States’

        What part of ALL do you not understand? It’s a pretty short, simple word. It’s only three letters. Here’s a link to the definition maybe you can memorize it, though I doubt it.

        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/all

  15. The ‘cocktail’ method was proposed by some guy (not in the mood to google it right now) and it caught on

    It’s not a Google-able thing, really. Back in the day, I tried to write the story of the origin of the standard lethal injection protocol. Couldn’t do it.

    Of course, the states all credit each other for it. Oklahoma codified it first, but they didn’t use it until a bunch of other states had copied their law and put it into practice already?crediting OK with having shown its efficacy and humanity. Then OK credited them with the same, and started shootin’ fuckers up.

    I could attribute two of the three chemicals in the standard “cocktail” (but they’re not mixed) to an anesthesiologist who answered a query from a Senator about the plausibility and cost of lethal injection, but the three-drug version arose mysteriously, from nobody, nowhere.
    Who actually writes laws is a secret tightly held by not many people. Fred Leuchter (Google that, yo) is the prime suspect in this case, but no one’s going to admit they got it from him.

    1. Also, in many states the state medical association forbids its members from participating in executions.

  16. In all seriousness, the best way to die is to be inside a crucible when they pour molten steel into it. You immediately vaporize and there is no messy clean up. In fact, you can still use the steel.

    1. While true, I doubt you can get the general public to buy off on this. And while you can still use the steel, I’m betting your pickier customers might have an issue with the adulterants.

      1. contaminants…probably pretty crappy steeldepending on the size of the pour…maybe good enough for sheet metal

        1. Carbon is added to steel anyway. Most other contaminants vaporize or are removed as slag material that floats or sinks in the crucible. There is all kinds of shit that ends up melted down in scrap- paint, wood, plastic, foodstuffs, dirt, other metals… It can all be separated from the good stuff.

          1. You’re talking iron (the alloy), not steel.

            1. Not to be pedantic, but iron isn’t an alloy, it’s an element.

              1. Iron is both. The alloy contains a lot of carbon. When the technology to lower the carbon content was developed, the product was called steel. So iron has less iron than steel. I blame the French.

  17. I think murderers should be put away for life with their only reading material being The Complete Collection of Maureen Dowd Commentaries.

    1. I thank the framers of the Constitution for making that a not so likely possibility when they inserted ‘cruel and unusual.’

  18. For a quick end, its pretty hard to beat Stalin-style (.45, back of the head). But why stop there? If .45 works good, 25mm HE should do wonders…and no mess, at least no goo, because the whole thing is cauterized with the HE.

    When we were in Iraq, I saw a guy get hit almost a whole click downrange from a Bushmaster on a M3, and it still made that guy flip. I mean the guy didn’t get shot, it was KERSMACKO. Dude was nailing virgins before the remains of his face hit the ground. When we got up to where his leftovers were, there wasn’t even a splatter. Shockwave and heat from the HE round emptied the dude out, guy was a dehydrated conglomeration of bits. I never saw another KIA like that again, but the M3 gunner told me the weird ones were AP rounds hitting a guy, because unless they hit bone going through they would just whoosh right through, leave him standing up and wondering what the hell while he bled out. If an AP round did hit bone, R rated slasher movie all the way. At least that’s what he said. But the HE round leaves a pretty sterilized result.

    So, have the dude stand on the M3 and squat ass-to-the-turret with the muzzle tucked up there on the crick of his neck nice and tight… sodium pentothal wouldn’t have shit on the Bushmaster for speed of lethality.

    And as far as the death-penalty goes, the State screws everything up. But when I read about those goons who took out the wife and daughters of that doctor in Connecticut, well, that agitates something quite simian in me that would like to see the goons die in the most cruel and unusual ways I can think of. Tough moral dilemma there.

    1. And as far as the death-penalty goes, the State screws everything up. But when I read about those goons who took out the wife and daughters of that doctor in Connecticut, well, that agitates something quite simian in me that would like to see the goons die in the most cruel and unusual ways I can think of. Tough moral dilemma there.

      A writ of outlawry might work.

      The immediate consequence of being proven a nithing was outlawing. The outlawed did not have any rights, he was exlex (Latin for “outside of the legal system”), in Anglo-Saxon utlah, Middle Low German uutlagh, Old Norse utlagr. Just as feud yielded enmity among kinships, outlawry yielded enmity of all humanity.[63] ?”Yet that is but one aspect of outlawry. The outlaw is not only expelled from the kinship, he is also regarded henceforth as an enemy to mankind.”

      1. That’s an interesting idea that I’ve always thought of, but never knew it had been put in legal practice anywheres.

        Even then though, the state would still screw it up. There has to be a final arbiter of any condemnation of an individual by a collective, invariably that is the state, and invariable the state will screw it up from time-to-time. Any human social machine screws up from time-to-time.

        1. Why can we simply not give it up to God?

          1. I’m all for leaving it up to God. But for fucks like those chumps in Connecticut, Judgement is a pressing issue and I want to expedite the process.

      2. Every time I start leaning away from the death penalty a case like this comes up and I realize it does have a purpose.

  19. Either way, a single private company has the ability to halt all lethal injections in the United States, at least for a while.

    Somehow i suspect the patent for sodium thiopental expired some time ago. The problem is not the single private company the problem is the state gave that company defacto monopoly control of the product by refusing to buy it from other sources.

    Why the fuck is Reason writer Armin Rosen attacking a private company’s decision in regards to production of a certain product?

    Did Reason become a subsidiary of the Daily Kos?

    1. “Why the fuck is Reason writer Armin Rosen attacking a private company’s decision in regards to production of a certain product?”

      I think they were celebrating this, not attacking…

    2. LOL, retard.

  20. If we want to execute people humanely, why don’t we just shoot them up with a huge dose of morpine or heroin? Oh, I forgot, TEH DRUGS OUR BAD.

    1. But…but…they’re criminals. They can’t enjoy their last seconds on earth! Bloodthirst!!!

    2. They might become addicted.

    3. Drano

      it’s cheaper and a far better deterrent

    4. Drano

      it’s cheaper and a far better deterrent

  21. mice, I only fuck mice.

  22. Where the hell has anon-bot gone to?

  23. Because any change to the lethal injection formula would probably mean a costly lawsuit from death-penalty opponents (supposedly-humane lethal injection is already controversial enough)

    Why would this be so?

    1. Perhaps because of the vagueness of words like ‘substantial’ and ‘significantly’?

      “[A]lternatives (to the current method of lethal injection) must effectively address a ‘substantial risk of serious harm.’ To qualify, the alternative procedure must be feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain. If a State refuses to adopt such an alternative in the face of these documented advantages, without a legitimate penological justification for adhering to its current method of execution, then a State’s refusal to change its method can be viewed as ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment.” Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439 (U.S. 2008)

      That quote and other relevant information can be found here:
      http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or…..t-decision

  24. Oddly, death penality cases tend to get much more scrutiny from both the appeals process and criminal justice activists, so if I had been falsely convicted under present circumstances I’d almost rather be facing execution since my claims of innocence will be looked into in a far more timely manner and in greater detail.

  25. I realize that libertarians have a problem with state sanctioned executions, and God knows I have reasons not to be crazy about them — HAHAHAHA — okay, okay, it is bad form to laugh at your own material, and the more obscurant the more it makes you out to be an asshole, but, whew, just a second.

    Having a little trouble breathing.

    Okay, alright. I have a solution to the problem that will not compromise libertarian principles. Instead of an electric chair, needles or a firing squad, we place the prisoner in to a snug, warm place, kind of like a sensory deprivation chamber — whew, spent some time in those I tell ya — for a good long time, and when it is time to kill them, we jerk them by their legs until only their heads remain inside, apply a needle and a suction hose to the back of their skulls and suck their brains out!

    I’m sure all of you principled libertarians would be just fine with that, now wouldn’t you?

    1. And finally the thread goes full retard.

  26. If the fear is something new being considered “cruel and unusual,” then why not abandon lethal injection altogether and just bring back the rope? In all seriousness, how cound hanging ever be considered cruel and unusual? It’s probably been around since the Romans, so that certainly makes it “usual.” And as far as cruelty is concerned, I can’t see how a form of execution that has been around for millenia could be considered crueler than any other form that is still considered acceptable by most cultures.

    Old forms of execution, like drawing and quartering or drowning have come and gone, yet the rope remains. It’s quick, efficient and arguably the most humane way to execute.

    FWIW, I’m only for the death penalty in cases where there is absolutely no question of guilt…the Conn case is a prime example.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.