
Pfizer blocks its drugs from being used in lethal injections in prisons	(2016) - Tomte
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/13/pfizer-blocks-drugs-lethal-injections
======
jabl
I think the death penalty shouldn't exist, but I find this fascination with
all these Rube Goldberg style execution methods strange. Gas chambers, lethal
injections, electrocution, and whatnot.

If you're going to execute somebody, just put them up against a wall and shoot
them, FFS. A firing squad has the benefit of being quite certain (accounts of
botched executions are quite horrifying, IMHO), and cheap (prison guards
already have guns and ammo, no need to procure and maintain some special
execution apparatus).

~~~
Thiez
Do you really want prison guards to get used to firing (to kill) on inmates?
Besides, I imagine/hope that most of them wouldn't want to. Let's take
inspiration from George R.R. Martin and have the judge who imposed the death
penalty be on that squad.

~~~
lev99
I'm against following George R.R. Martin's lead, because I suspect it would
cause different judges to sentence different punishments for similar trials
given their own person aversion or attraction to killing. This would be
equivalent of people being treated unequally by the law, which is against the
equal protection clause of the fourteen amendment.

~~~
lb1lf
-I think your point is a valid (and good!) one, but I like - that is hardly an appropriate verb in this context - the concept.

Perhaps any prosecutor seeking the death penalty in a case would have to join
a pool of executioner's assistants? (Same for jurors and judges - unless you
are willing to follow through on actually killing someone, you are barred from
deciding on the matters of life and death?)

In this way, their verdict on any particular case wouldn't make any difference
(to them!) - they could be called upon to take part in the dirty details of an
actual execution in any other case but the one they sat in on.

The only problem I have with such a system, is that there's probably people
out there who'd basically ask 'Cool, where do I sign up?', which is somewhat
scary.

The civilized thing, of course, would be to abolish it altogether. Capital
punishment basically ensures that The System(tm) WILL murder innocents on
occasion.

As I like to ask proponents of the death penalty - what false positive rate is
acceptable?

~~~
burfog
An interesting thing to ask about the false positive rate: What is the false
positive rate on determining that there was a false positive? That is, we may
decide that someone was wrongly convicted, but we may be wrong in that
determination.

It is also interesting to note that a "wrong" conviction seldom means that the
person was a fine upstanding citizen. Often it means something like "convicted
of the killing, but only provided the weapon" or "convicted of the killing,
but was only trying to help a fellow gang member by disposing of the body".
This sort of false positive isn't anywhere near as bad as what we commonly
imagine to be the case, with a 100% innocent person being wrongly convicted.

~~~
lb1lf
-IMHO even a tiny minority of actual, true, false positives are enough to warrant getting rid of capital punishment (for that reason alone; there are other arguments, too!)

To phrase my question differently - if we take your concerns about false
positives into account, and accept that trying to help dispose of the body or
providing a weapon makes you fair game, capital punishment-wise - how large a
remaining false positive rate is acceptable to maintain that fine institution,
capital punishment?

1 in 100 fine, upstanding citizens being wrongfully convicted and executed? 1
in 1,000? At which point is the collateral damage, if you like, acceptable?

The matter was discussed here on HN recently, in the case of Kevin Cooper[0].

That's but one instance of what seems like a case where there's definitely
reasonable doubt - to put it mildly - regarding the convict's guilt.

Whether the person was a 'fine, upstanding citizen' IMHO is largely
irrelevant, unless one wants to set the bar for being sentenced to death lower
- like, for being an accessory to murder, for instance.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17098059](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17098059)

~~~
burfog
Probability for people on trial, or total lifetime probability? It's very
different. I think the total lifetime probability matters more.

We consider it acceptable to drive cars. This kills 1% to 2% of the
population. This seems like the baseline for acceptability. Not even 1% of the
population gets put on trial with the possibility of the death penalty, so we
could just go straight to execution without a trial and still be more
acceptable than letting people drive cars.

Or shall we ban cars?

Only 1 in 119,012 die from execution.

Another baseline for acceptability is drowning. Homes all across America have
pools. A person is about 100x more likely to die of drowning than an
execution, yet pools are still legal.

~~~
lb1lf
...but surely it is reasonable to maintain there's a distinction between
having people die from what we can call accidents or mishaps - falling into a
pool, being run over by a truck, getting electrocuted or choking on a peanut
&c on one side...

...and on the other being locked up for years by the system we - as a
collective - have created to protect us from just that kind of arbitrary
violence, before that same system murders you -ahem- for the Greater Good(tm)?

The fact that the murder of an innocent is highly unlikely doesn't (IMHO) make
it any more acceptable. Government is supposed to protect you; not kill you in
the very textbook definition of premeditated murder.

(Besides, cars and swimming pools have verifiable upsides. The 'benefits' -if
any- of the death penalty are highly debatable.)

------
mnm1
Good for Pfizer. Being tortured for two hours while dying from some
combination of poison is still not cruel and unusual punishment? What exactly
do American courts consider cruel and unusual if being tortured to death while
in great pain for hours isn't considered so? If this torture lasted two days,
weeks, months, years, or decades instead of two hours would that be cruel and
unusual? Going by what happens at Guantanamo Bay, it would seem not. What
things have been declared cruel and unusual punishment in the past, if any?
Slavery is legal as punishment. Does that mean rape is too? Beating, shocking,
waterboarding, and other forms of torture are all legal even when they lead to
the death of the prisoner. Does America actually have a line it won't cross,
or is the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment just a bunch of bullshit
written in a constitution that is largely ignored? Seems to be mainly the
latter.

------
Rjevski
Just wondering, why can’t an inert gas be used?

We know from high-altitude aircraft accidents (like
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522))
that lack of oxygen leads to quick and painless loss of consciousness and
eventual death.

To be clear, I am against the death penalty, but if it’s needed then I much
prefer a humane method rather than untested drugs that often backfire.

~~~
ryanlol
Lethal injections aren't really supposed to be quick and painless.

~~~
jabl
You really think that? If so, why not go back to breaking people on the wheel?
Or hanged, drawn and quartered? All done on a public square, with mandatory
attendance for adults and children alike, of course?

Yup, that would make the world a better place... /s

~~~
teddyh
You are making an is-ought misinterpretation. The person you replied to
(ryanlol) might be against the death penalty, but recognize that the reason it
exists is not only to actually kill people, but also to make them suffer. One
can recognize this fact without arguing for it.

~~~
jabl
Of course it's an over-the-top strawman. I just find it shocking that the
parent apparently thinks that capital punishment by itself isn't barbaric
enough, but on top of that it should be a drawn-out and painful affair. Which
frankly is an argument straight out of the dark ages.

Ok, fine, the parent didn't explicitly say that is a view (s)he shares.

------
yawaramin
Surely it's not constitutional for a government to hide its vendors. National
security can't be an excuse for state-level secret procurement.

~~~
closeparen
You really think the nuclear missle program, covert human intelligence, etc.
have RFPs and purchase orders that you can just FOIA? GSA branded office
supplies would be a hell of a way to blow your cover. Of course there’s secret
purchasing. Google “black budget.”

~~~
kss238
I think the commenter means it shouldn't be an excuse for state governments.

Although I didn't see a specific excuse state governments are using to hide
their suppliers, just that the state governments are being "secretive".

------
jlebrech
why not use a bullet?

------
burfog
Simply provide heroin, and lots of these people would self-execute. The cops
collect lots of heroin, and they don't have any use for it. The disposal costs
must be annoying. It seems we can solve the problem of disposal as well.

~~~
dnate
That is not how drugs and addiction work. Most people with a functioning
social environment could take heroin, and would be fine. It is not much
different from drugs administered in hospitals, and you don't see patients
turning into drug addicts in masses.

Except maybe in some countries where doctors dish out opioids like they are
candy.

~~~
stordoff
> It is not much different from drugs administered in hospitals

In some cases, it's essentially identical to drugs used in hospitals. In the
UK, diamorphine is commonly used in palliative care.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Medical_uses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Medical_uses)

~~~
krageon
Presumably they were talking about the purity of street heroin versus what
you'd get in a medical setting. I assume the latter wouldn't be cut with
whatever the dealer had on hand.

