A man named Kenneth Biros, who was put on death row after brutally murdering and dismembering a woman he met at a bar, died this morning in an Ohio prison by a new method of execution. Ever since lethal injections have been used for individuals sentenced to death, the injections have typically been three-drug cocktails. Today, however, Biros became the first person in American history to be executed by a single drug. The drug was a large dose of an anesthetic typically used by veterinarians to euthanize animals, and which was one of the drugs in the typical three-drug injection. This drug, however, has never been used on its own in executions before, and the effects of using this one drug were unknown. In addition the Ohio prison had about three problem executions before, one of which left a man in so much pain that the governor had to call the execution off. So, Biros appealed to a higher court, his lawyer asking for a postponement of the execution by a few days so that the ethicality of this new execution protocal could be discussed. The courts refused.
While this man committed a terribly heinous crime, I think people should still be treated humanely in their last few hours of life. This drug could have made his death a slightly longer process, but it apparently puts the prisoner into a sleep so deep that he stops breathing. While falling asleep seems to be a humane way to die, a longer death seems to be less humane. Is it ethical to try out a new drug as an execution technique? The articles I read do not clearly state how much research went into the decision to use this one drug. I think that if significant research shows that the drug would be more humane, then using a new drug in an execution, would be acceptable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/07/lawyers-fight-ohio-execution
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/12/biros_becomes_first_inmate_exe.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/biros-execution-kenneth-b_n_384409.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Is there a way to kill someone humanely? I agree that we should continue to treat someone as a human in their last few hours of life; however, it does not seem to be very humane to be the ones responsible for his death. There are certainly ways to die that are worse or more painful than others, but we are still talking about death.
I think we must also ask: what is the true purpose of the death penalty? It is used to punish those who have committed particularly awful crimes. Some people describe it as retribution while others see it as a way to rid the world of a murderer or a rapist. For those who see it as retribution, wouldn’t it make the most sense to kill the person by the same method they used on someone else? I’m not saying that I agree with this idea, but it seems to make the most logical sense. And for those who want to rid the world of a murderer, why not just keep them in jail? With our new methods of killing people, it seems as if we are trying to do it in the shortest, least painful way possible. However, death is death and it all leads to the same, unethical result of having killed someone. It seems to me, if we are looking to find a way to kill someone in the most humane way possible, we should just keep them alive in jail.
In addition, in the case of Biros, although the lethal injection had not yet been used on a human, it still seems “more humane” than the existing methods. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the approved methods of killing someone in the United States are by lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, or a firing squad (although the last two are not quite as popular). If we are trying to find a way to kill people painlessly, lethal injection would be at the top of the list. However, once we start using drugs that veterinarians use to euthanize animals to make our criminals’ deaths become more ethical, we might as well just keep them alive.
Site Used:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution#authorized
Alex took the words right out my mouth when she pointed out that killing someone humanely is a difficult, if not impossible, feat to accomplish. Call me cruel, but I don’t believe that murderers like Kenneth Biros have the right to a humane and easy death. I doubt he humanely killed the woman he murdered and dismembered. People who advocate a quick, painless death for criminals like Biros argue that two rights don’t make a wrong, and society shouldn’t stoop to the levels of the criminals by inflicting pain as retribution. They also claim that revenge does not actually offer the victims’ families closure. I disagree with their sentiments. People like Biros shouldn’t have killed anyone in the first place. Think of his victim, not as a statistic or just a faceless stranger, but as someone close to you. Personally, I think Biros was more than lucky to die while falling into a deep sleep. Execution will always be a tricky issue, for there will never be a perfect way to go about killing someone. Ideally, criminals should repay their debt to society during a lifetime in jail through working, volunteering, and so forth (all under supervision of course), but realistically, we cannot afford to spend the billions of taxpayers’ dollars that would be required to carry this plan out.
Post a Comment