Botched Execution, Again

[colander]

Punishment is behavioural modification via negative reinforcement,

No. In behavior modification lingo, negative reinforcement is when you take away an unpleasant stimulus to encourage the desired behavior in the subject. Introducing an unpleasant stimulus for the purpose of discouraging an undesired behavior is called "positive punishment." Anyway, I don't think it makes very much sense to use behavior modification terms to describe a process whose purpose is to render the subject dead.

 

[angrysoba]

No. In behavior modification lingo, negative reinforcement is when you take away an unpleasant stimulus to encourage the desired behavior in the subject. Introducing an unpleasant stimulus for the purpose of discouraging an undesired behavior is called "positive punishment." Anyway, I don't think it makes very much sense to use behavior modification terms to describe a process whose purpose is to render the subject dead.

It certainly modifies behaviour though.

 

[Bob001]

Absolutely not. There is a simple, cheap,humane, and reliable method of killing a person: nitrogen asphyxiation. It's such a mild and unpleasant death, that it happens in industrial accidents with the victim completely unaware of what is going on. I'm somewhat undecided when it comes to capital punishment... but as long as the methods are vindictive, I will vote against those who push it.

You don't really mean unpleasant, do you? Maybe untroubled or painless? Apparently nitrogen and helium are being used in suicides, and at least one person has been prosecuted for selling helium suicide kits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bag

 

[fuelair]

This is a joke, right? You're kidding, being facetious, yes?

I wasn't when I first heard today what he did to earn his execution. The execution for one murder should be death the way the victim died. For more than one victim, more elaborate. Enough of those and I suspect only the psychopaths would spend time murdering. And, if I am wrong...

As to innocence but convicted. I firmly believe some form of quality outside investigation should be made (preferably before a trial and paid for by the state - and I do not mean local police/prosecutors unless there is unbeatable AND CLEAR EVIDENCE/PROOF/TESTIMONY that is ironclad). There are some add ons, but the only ones I will mention involves the imprisonment/execution if anyone involved in the investigation lied/suborned perjury/hid proof/evidence of innocence and related including lawyers with clients they know or suspect actually did the crime who do not make that information available toot suite to the police and the person on trial's attorney.

 

[fuelair]

Gas chambers, which used hydrogen cyanide, not carbon monoxide, used to be used in many states.

Pure Nitrogen - and it is cheaper, no pain. Explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiation

 

[fuelair]

You don't really mean unpleasant, do you? Maybe untroubled or painless? Apparently nitrogen and helium are being used in suicides, and at least one person has been prosecuted for selling helium suicide kits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bag

I can testify that Helium certainly does not work that way - I have breathed in Helium many times to do the squeaky voice thing and within 30-40 seconds I feel a need to breathe real air.

 

[Bob001]

.....
The protocol makes sense: ensure amnesia first, then give them a whopping dose of an anesthetic induction agent (which will further reassure the executioner that they are completely amnestic), then give them a muscle paralytic which will stop their breathing, and finally administer a cardioplegic - which will stop the heart. You have the second IV for the very reason in case the first one "blows" in the middle of the procedure.
......

~Dr. Imago

I appreciate your expert knowledge. How would you compare this three-drug protocol, even performed correctly, with other proposals: asphyxiation by carbon monoxide, helium or nitrogen; hypobaric chamber; massive barbiturate dose as used by vets?

 

[angrysoba]

I wasn't when I first heard today what he did to earn his execution. The execution for one murder should be death the way the victim died. For more than one victim, more elaborate. Enough of those and I suspect only the psychopaths would spend time murdering. And, if I am wrong...

Do you have evidence that these assumptions would work in practice? The reason why I ask is that capital punishment used to be carried out for all kinds of crimes such as stealing, not only murder, and yet it appears that such crimes did not drop off to zero.

As to innocence but convicted. I firmly believe some form of quality outside investigation should be made (preferably before a trial and paid for by the state - and I do not mean local police/prosecutors unless there is unbeatable AND CLEAR EVIDENCE/PROOF/TESTIMONY that is ironclad).

This does not suggest a lot of faith in the current police and legal establishments which surely are independent of each other. How would you guarantee the impartiality of any outside body and what would this outside body consist of? Private firms that guarantee "satisfaction"? Who would commission them?

There are some add ons, but the only ones I will mention involves the imprisonment/execution if anyone involved in the investigation lied/suborned perjury/hid proof/evidence of innocence and related including lawyers with clients they know or suspect actually did the crime who do not make that information available toot suite to the police and the person on trial's attorney.

Can you really not see the most glaring and obvious results of such policies? Not only would you set up a new layer of attempted prosecution of anybody who even defended suspects - particularly when the suspects have been found guilty in the court of public opinion - you would necessarily have lawyers turning on their own clients to save their own skins regardless of whether the defendant is actually guilty or innocent.

It boggles the mind that some people do not understand principles of the protection of a presumption of innocence and would like to bring in shortcuts to the gallows by threatening anyone who upholds basic principles of justice.

Have you actually thought about these things or do you just reactively call for kangaroo courts whenever you read about the bad things people do in the world?

 

[bruto]

I can't imagine that fuelair has thought very clearly about the implication of executing lawyers who "know or suspect" their clients are guilty. If you can imagine (or happen of course to know already) that a single suspect has been found guilty and executed wrongly, then it is not so hard to imagine that the lawyer of the same person, or the lawyer even of someone convicted rightly, would be in mortal danger. You'd have to be confident not only of your client's innocence, but of the prosecution's and the jury's integrity, to take on any case at all. One bad judgment and you fry? You might as well deny counsel at the start and shoot suspects without a trial.

 

[RationalVetMed]

... The protocol makes sense: ensure amnesia first, then give them a whopping dose of an anesthetic induction agent (which will further reassure the executioner that they are completely amnestic), then give them a muscle paralytic which will stop their breathing, and finally administer a cardioplegic - which will stop the heart. You have the second IV for the very reason in case the first one "blows" in the middle of the procedure.

The "failed" protocols contain no back-up and/or redundancy plan...

~Dr. Imago

Thanks for the clarification, I can understand the need for elaborate redundancies and back-ups being built in where humans are concerned. It makes for a very elaborate ritual though, pretty much the opposite to the low key, low-tech, as simple-as-possible desired effect with veterinary euthanasias.

Yuri

 

[The Don]

I was a correctional officer many years ago at Montana State Prison. Montana has executed very few persons in the past 30 years, however when there was an execution there was no shortage of staff stepping up to be the one to push the buttons.

There's a big difference between pushing a button to administer a lethal injection and putting a gun to someone's temple and pulling the trigger and seeing the gory result or more specifically studies on ex-servicemen show that those who kill remotely (for example a sniper, a pilot or someone operating a drone) suffer less than those who kill up close and personal (adjusted for other factors).

As I stated in an earlier post, my (admittedly probably not analogous) experience with rabbits is that there's a big difference between shooting them with a .22 and killing them hands on.

Of course all of this is "on average" and there are people out there who seem to suffer no negative consequences from killing. Studies on WWII veterans showed that they fell into two camps, "Shepherds" who did not enjoy the killing but were able to rationalise it in terms of protecting themselves and their colleagues and psychopaths who were genuinely enjoying the whole process. The study showed that these two groups comprised roughly 2% of the population and that the 2% were roughly evenly split between the two subtypes. It may be that the kind of person who is attracted to being a corrections officer and who can put up with the dangers and rigours of the role is disproportionately represented in one or other of those groups (I'm pretty sure I'm in neither group and there's no way I could be a corrections officer, the job is too demanding).

 

[GlennB]

Absolutely not. There is a simple, cheap,humane, and reliable method of killing a person: nitrogen asphyxiation.

I was going to mention this. Simple removal of oxygen, while ensuring no CO2 build up, leads, I read, to a feeling of sleepy euphoria followed by unconciousness followed by death.

 

[3point14]

Delete

 

[Belz...]

No. In behavior modification lingo, negative reinforcement is when you take away an unpleasant stimulus to encourage the desired behavior in the subject. Introducing an unpleasant stimulus for the purpose of discouraging an undesired behavior is called "positive punishment."

Correction noted.

Anyway, I don't think it makes very much sense to use behavior modification terms to describe a process whose purpose is to render the subject dead

Indeed. In this case, "punishment" amounts to revenge.

 

[Arcade22]

Couldn't have been that botched.... he's dead.

It wasn't nice, tidy and "humane" (whatever the **** that is supposed to mean) so it was botched. I mean if they just wanted him dead they could just smash his head into pieces with a large club or something but we can't have that.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Is this a common problem? Dead people remembering their executions?

Of course not, if the execution is successful. Using another protocol could (and has) pose problems for the people watching. There would be no "drama" in this type of execution.

And, if for some reason, the execution was halted due to technical problems and/or the person being executed was "saved" at the last minute by stay order or reprieve (which could be done up to the point that the potassium chloride was administered - then it's lights out... permanently), there is no way that they would recollect much after the IVs were started using such a protocol when they "woke up". Midazolam has both anterograde and retrograde amnesia inducing properties.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Dr. Imago]

I appreciate your expert knowledge. How would you compare this three-drug protocol, even performed correctly, with other proposals: asphyxiation by carbon monoxide, helium or nitrogen; hypobaric chamber; massive barbiturate dose as used by vets?

Spoke about the barbiturate problem already. I'm not sure that veterinarians are still doing this, as I stated the ones we use are hard to get in the U.S. They can comment on that.

As far as asphyxiation, which are essentially the other methods we're taking about, I'm not sure that it would be as quick and painless as described by others. Remember, people are watching this (including in many states lay-people) as witnesses. I think the asphyxiation death may have a more violent ending than described, although I've never personally witnessed one myself. Even if the victim would be unconscious and not remember the end, the observers may consider it "cruel and unusual" based on what would happen. Certainly, creating an atmospheric condition of 100% nitrogen involves technical costs that would exceed lethal injection costs.

Lethal injection, when done correctly, is the standard because it is quick, painless, and cheap. The problem is the "done correctly" part, as we've seen as the genesis of this discussion.

~Dr. Imago

 

[MontagK505]

The system seems to be based on existing (though I think outdated) methods of anaesthesia, rather than existing tried-and-tested methods of euthanasia. (As Yuri says, just ask a vet.) This has introduced a series of wholly unnecessary complications that foul up the procedure.

One of the problems seems to be that the method has to be usable by "lay" operatives, because medical personnel won't get involved. Standard euthanasia is easy enough if you're practised in getting a vein. Prison officers, however, are not.

Indeed, shooting works. Ask any equine vet. It's onlookers who spoil this by being squeamish.
Rolfe.

While I'm not a fan of capital punishment, the guillotine is faster, and according to a doctor friend, likely more humane. It is messy although. It doesn't require medical personnel. Sometimes the gallows doesn't cleanly break the neck, especially if you have a sadistic hangman.

 

[often mrunderstood]

Oops.

There should have been a 2 for 1 special on botched executions for that pair.

On the scale of relative cruelty (based on the crimes they committed), this guy won a free trip to Disneyland.

 

[angrysoba]

Oops.

There should have been a 2 for 1 special on botched executions for that pair.

On the scale of relative cruelty (based on the crimes they committed), this guy won a free trip to Disneyland.

You make it sound like a zero-sum game. If the state can inflict the same amount of suffering on the perpetrator as he inflicted on his victim then a certain karmic balance descends upon the cosmos and all is well. Only he got a free trip to Disneyland because the karma was unbalanced in his favour.

Whether you support capital punishment or not, the issue with botching executions is a separate issue to whether or not the executed was guilty of a very terrible crime.