Lethal Injection Is the Inverse

Lethal Injection is the inverse of the guillotine. Rather than painless for the convict but gruesome for witnesses, the three-drug cocktail may be easy on witnesses but brutal for the victim -- an inert body suffering unspeakable pain." -- Mark Essig, the New York Times

The Death penalty is an issue that Republicans, Democrats, third parties, and independents have been debating for decades. As one of the 64 countries that still have the death penalty (Amnesty International), the United Sates' executions are quite controversial. In addition to the appropriateness and legality of the death penalty itself, methods of execution have recently been called into question. While the United States used to employ rather gruesome methods of execution -- such as gas chambers, hangings, and firing squads -- the humanity of the lethal injection, now the method of execution used by most states, s being called into question.

In 1977, a three-drug method of execution was invented in order to "coat the nastiness of killing with a veneer of medical respectability." This is what is called, "lethal injection" today. The three drug cocktail is meant to administer anesthesia, which is intended to prevent the inmate from feeling any pain; paralyze the convict, so he or she cannot move, make noise, or show pain; and stop the heart (Weil). Although the drug is meant to render the execution painless, many suggest it does not do so. Instead, those against the use of lethal injection suggest that it simply prevents the inmate from expressing the pain. Because the eighth amendment protects citizens from cruel and unusual punishment, this group would hold that death by lethal injection is unconstitutional. On the other hand, those in favor of the practice suggest that legal injection is painless, and argue that death via legal injection is a far more humane way to die than the way in which many of those sentenced to execution killed their victims. Thus, the debate regarding lethal injection as a method of execution is two-fold. First, legal concerns must be addressed. Second, ethical and moral concerns must be discussed. By examining both these legal and ethical arguments, one can determine that death by lethal injection is both illegal and unconstitutional, in addition to morally and ethically perverse.

According to the United States Constitution, citizens are barred from "cruel and unusual" punishment ("The Constitution of the United States," Amendment 8"). Because lethal injection is both cruel and unusual, it is automatically rendered unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. Although, to this date, the Supreme Court has upheld the practice as constitutional, it can clearly be described as meeting the guidelines of both cruel and unusual. First, Weil suggests that the cruelty of lethal injection lies both in the fact that its victims often suffer pain, and in the fact that these victims are not allowed the basic human desire of expressing that pain. To begin with, Weil notes that those who administer the injections often have little or no training, and, as a result, are quite often incorrect when inserting IVs. Thus, Weil argues that inmates suffer pain, including burns and prolonged executions. This can certainly be considered cruel, but what is even crueler is that inmates are unable to express the pain they feel. Instead, they are paralyzed, unable even to grimace. While the drugs prevent onlookers from having to witness the consequences of their actions, it certainly does not dull the pain. In fact, Weil suggests that inmates are not even afforded the sympathy given to animals, which are put to sleep using a single drug that does not include paralysis.

Proponents of lethal injection, however, maintain that the method is far from meeting the definitions of cruel. Saunders argues that lethal injection cannot be painful in that it includes ten times the amount of anesthetic used during "invasive surgery." Furthermore, Saunders implies that it is not necessary to choose a painless method for executing inmates that are murderers themselves. While this argument may be true, it certainly holds no legal clout. Regardless of how heinous the murderer's crime is, the constitution stipulates that "cruel and unusual" punishment is illegal, and because the constitution is written with an assumption of equality, this suggests that the standard applies to everyone. Furthermore, Saunders and other pro-lethal injection lobbyists' opinion that lethal injection is not cruel due to the amount of anesthetic given are directly encountered by physical evidence, such as the burn marks Weil notes were observed on the body of one executed man and the lack of execution training that Weil argues is commonly practiced. In addition, proponents of legal injection may note that lethal injection is not unusual, in that 37 of the 50 states use this method (Weil). But when viewed in globally, the United States, paired with the likes of China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and Sudan, performed 91% of all executions (Amnesty International). Thus, among industrialized democracies, lethal injection, executions in general, are far from usual. Thus, in the face of opposition, it has become increasingly clear that execution via legal injection is legally unacceptable in that it is unconstitutional, illegal.

In additional legality, however, legal injection can be struck down because of its immoral or unethical status. While arguing morality and ethics is always a difficult task because many people have different values, and therefore different sets of morals and ethics, by looking at the common and popular value of human rights, one can suggest that lethal injection is, indeed, immoral or unethical. According to Amnesty International, many international treaties have called for the abolition of the death penalty. These treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights, have suggested the immorality and unethical nature of the death penalty (Amnesty International). If the death penalty itself is immoral, then lethal injection, by default must also be immoral.