Lethal injection is far more humane than the electric chair or the gas chamber, but is this method of execution humane in itself? The discussion of this question has always been rather controversial, as far as people have either kept to the point of view that violent criminals should be punished severely, or have been convinced that they, as human beings, have the rights to humane treatment. Drawing from this, numerous methods of capital punishment were invented by mankind, some of the more humane, some less. With the overall trend in the society towards the equality of rights and humane treatment of all the society members, more humane and less painful methods of capital punishment substituted the cruelest ones. Accordingly, lethal injection was invented to be an easier and more humane method of execution but it is far from being humane.
Thus, to begin with, it is necessary to state that lethal injection is not humane. There are numerous proofs to this point of view. One of these proofs is the idea that the alleged humane nature of lethal injection provided by the use of modern technology is disputed and doubted. From time immemorial, mankind has had numerous ways of punishing people for cruel crimes. People were beheaded, hanged, burnt, tortured to death, etc. Modern society seems to have understood the cruelty of these punishments, but the substitution found should be severely criticized (Steiker, p. 751). Lethal injection consisting of the sequential injection of the three chemical elements that stop the activities of the human organism can not be called humane, even in comparison to the capital punishment on the electric chair. The injections of sodium thiopental as an anesthetic, pancuronium bromide as a muscle relaxant, and potassium chloride to stop the working cycle of the human heart – these are the procedures that numerous capital punishment defenders claim to be humane, but it is evident that they are not (Health, 2005). Also, there is no actual difference between whether a person is killed through an electricity strike on the electric chair or through lethal injection. Modern technology does not make cruel punishment measures more humane, it only transforms them.
Moreover, there is a purely human, or ethical, side of this issue. Killing one human being by another one for any reason is not humane. This concept is basic to any religion of the world and is the fundamental principle of the peaceful existence of human beings on Earth. However, scholars, like Steiker (2005) compare the alleged humanity of the method of the lethal injection to the fast and painless gunshot in the head, and state that criminals in today’s America are treated with more cruelty than animals (Steiker, p. 751). Thus, according to the New Scientist (2005), tests on animals are carried out in respect of finding out another, less painful way of lethal injection. Moreover, when homeless animals are injected the chemical is single. It causes the stopping of the heart without additional muscle paralyzing or anesthetics (Health, 2005). This way is fast and painless, while a lot of controversies have been raised around the three-drug mixture used for injecting criminals. Kentucky death row criminals asked for the change of the mixture to a single-component one claiming that the currently used injections are painful, but their claims were dismissed. This decision was made because criminals, according to the US Supreme Court, are not eligible for choosing the type of injection they should be executed through (Health, 2005).
Furthermore, the use of lethal injection, along with any other method of capital punishment, is criminal and unjust. This issue is complicated even more by the fact that capital punishment is a crime against human nature and human freedoms executed by the state (Steiker, p. 751). Thus, the community of people created for the defense of the human interests, i. e. the state, turns out to be the machine of human destruction. Thus, according to Glaister (2008), the USA takes the fifth place in the world in respect of the number of people executed annually: “The top five countries – China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and the US – carried out 88% of the 1,252 executions known to have been carried out in 2007.” (Glaister, 2008) Moreover, the actions of the US Supreme Court prove that the state is interested in the preservation of the criminal punishment. In 2008, the three criminals from the death row prison in Kentucky appealed to the court claiming that the three-drug lethal injection is painful and leads to death, not in all cases. All these people asked for was to change the three-drug injection to a single-drug one which proved to be more effective and fast. The US Supreme Court, however, found that criminals can not choose in this case and stated that no freedoms of human beings are broken by the use of the three-drug injection (Glaister, 2008). Another interesting fact is that the use of lethal injection, which is proved to be painful and inhumane, is the violation of the Constitution of the United States: “But insufficient sodium thiopental might leave the prisoner aware as the other two drugs take effect, the researchers say, violating the United States Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel punishment.” (Science News, 2007).
Taking into consideration another perspective of this issue, it is evident that there is no actual usefulness of capital punishment through lethal injection. In its essence, capital punishment is the means of fighting crimes of all kinds, but the statistics prove that crime rates do not get lower in the countries where capital punishment is in active use (Ekelund, Jackson, Ressler, and Tollison, p. 521). Even vice versa, human nature makes people break social norms. The stricter these norms are, the more they are broken. Moreover, it is typical of human beings not to be afraid of collective law breakings, because there is a belief that no one is punished when many persons are to be punished. Thus, for example, according to the data presented by Ekelund, Jackson, Ressler, and Tollison (2006), there is no actual use in capital punishment through lethal injection. The major essence of the death penalty is to deter further murders, rapes, and other serious crimes. However, “multiple murders are not significantly deterred by any form of capital punishment” (Ekelund, Jackson, Ressler and Tollison, 521). Moreover, the same scholars argue that according to their empirical studies, capital punishment on the electric chair was far more effective in crime deterrence. Even even though it is only statistics, it is evident that both goals of the lethal injection implementation have failed. It has not become a more humane method of punishment, and it failed to reduce the crime rates.
Accordingly, the question arises – who then benefits from the death penalty? The answer is a hard one because the victims of the criminals to whom the capital punishment was executed can not benefit from it. Neither can the criminals themselves, their relatives, or the relatives and families of their victims. For example, the use of capital punishment through lethal injection, or any other form, can lead to the irreversible loss of a beloved person for the family of a criminal or a person who has been wrongly convicted of murder. Due to the numerous failures of the current legislation and judicial system, an innocent person might be accused, convicted, and executed wrongly (Steiker, p. 751). At the same time, if the death penalty were banned, it could be possible to find evidence of the innocence of that person and save his or her life (Steiker, p. 751). Drawing from this, it can be assumed that the only benefiting side in this situation is the state that regulates the population and keeps its citizens in fear of capital punishment. The state needs that people should always have various issues to solve so that to distract their attention from the deeds of politicians. From this point of view, the use of the death penalty through lethal injection, or in any other way, becomes even more inhumane.
Moreover, this point is evident if the universal truth is taken into consideration. This truth states that violence always brings violence, and it is impossible to stop violence by implementing violent methods of fighting it. Thus, the state initiatives of implementation the capital punishment are directed at the permanent revival of violence that supplies numerous state organizations, court, and judicial systems with work. Further on, the supporters of the death penalty implementation call it equal feedback for the crime a person committed (Steiker, p. 751). For example, a murderer is executed for taking the life of another person. According to this viewpoint, the cruelty of the punishment should correlate with the cruelty of the crime. However, scholars like Steiker (2005) ironically argue with this point. According to Steiker, if this viewpoint is right, then rape should be the punishment for rapists, tortures should be used to punish torturers, and so on (Steiker, p. 751). As far as even the fiercest supporters of the death penalty admit the absurdity of this argument, it becomes evident that capital punishment is not the effective way to fight crime. Moreover, it is far from being humane.
Thus, drawing from all the above-discussed ideas, it is evident that the use of any capital punishment on the whole, and lethal injection, in particular, is inhumane and should be eliminated from society. Though it is stated by numerous scholars and authorities that lethal injection is a painless method of capital punishment, recent research works have proved that human beings suffer severely during the lethal injection procedure (Science News, 2007). Thus, according to the New Scientist (2005), recent research works and post mortems of the punished people prove that they were conscious when the other two components of the injection worked, which means that paralyzing chemicals worked and did not allow people to express suffering while anesthetic did not work at the moment (Health, 2005). The experts that carried out these research works stated the necessity of inventing another type of injection which might stop the organism’s activities without causing suffering to the criminals (Science News, 2007). However, the attitudes of authorities are still firm – the injections prove to be effective and there is no need to ease the sufferings of those who made other people suffer (Science News, 2007). This is not a humane point of view, not even approximately. Moreover, the argument that lethal injection should be resorted to as it is a bloodless method of punishment does not prove the right of capital punishment for existence on the whole. In its essence, lethal injection punishment is the procedure of killing a human being and the modern progressive society can not leave this issue without its attention.
Finally, it is undoubted that criminals should be punished for their crimes. However, it is possible to punish them without resorting to the violent crimes in their relation. Moreover, there is a great opportunity for society to benefit from the criminals’ work as a kind of punishment. It is easier for the criminals themselves when their responsibility for the crimes is reduced to death, while the method of making them work for the benefit of society will be a much better punishment in itself (Steiker, p. 751). Thus, for example, the very institution of prison has long been criticized as the one bringing more violence to society than treating this violence. As for the death penalty implementation, it is another anti-social measure. With the help of it, a person that committed a crime and did harm to society is released from responsibility for his or her deeds. Lethal injection, or another method of capital punishment, is viewed here as the easiest way out for murderers or rapists. Instead, they might be forced to work without salaries for the benefit of society (Ekelund, Jackson, Ressler and Tollison, p. 521). For example, the criminals sentenced to death might be used as the labor force for the state industry or some other kinds of work that demand physical power but are not connected with communication with people. Thus, socially beneficial works are the measures that could both replace capital punishment and become humane punishment for criminals.
To make the respective conclusion to this paper, it is necessary to state that the value of human life is paramount for society. We have to value all human beings, even if they have broken the law and become criminals. The latter, if healthy and fitting to it, can be used to work and produce something useful for society instead of making it easier for them by killing them. Moreover, justice for the victims of the criminals is not necessarily reached by killing the latter. Justice and violence are incompatible, and thus they should be separated in the minds of people. Lethal injection was invented by mankind to be an easier and more humane method of capital punishment but it is far from being humane.
References
Ekelund, R. B., Jackson, J. D., Ressler, R. W., & Tollison, R. D. (2006). Marginal Deterrence and Multiple Murders. Southern Economic Journal, 72(3), 521+.
Steiker, C. S. (2005). No, Capital Punishment Is Not Morally Required: Deterrence, Deontology, and the Death Penalty. Stanford Law Review, 58(3), 751+.
Health. (2005). Execution by lethal injection branded inhumane. 2009. Web.
Glaister, D. (2008). Lethal injection not inhumane, rules US court. 2009. Web.
Science News. (2007). Lethal injection is inhumane, say researchers. 2009. Web.