• FishLake@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    10 months ago

    I think the point OP is making is that the state doesn’t appear to be interested in quick and affordable executions. If it were then it would seek to amend or change laws/regulations in order to do so. But instead the state pursues these experimental executions that are slower and crueler.

    • AnarchoAnarchist [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      It is also, ironically, because of a failure in the market.

      A lot of drug manufacturers are reluctant to have “used by the Statesville Department of Corrections to execute people” on the Wikipedia page for the drug they are trying to to sell. Having your drug used to put people to death makes it harder to sell to people that want to stay alive. So even though there is an open market for these chemicals, it is harder and harder to convince manufacturers to supply that market. Even where it’s not explicitly prohibited like companies operating out of the European Union.

      Also, the whole killing people thing kind of antithetical to most medical codes of ethics. Even outside of bad publicity, there are moral considerations, most doctors do not want to put their name to an execution method, it kind of goes against the whole “do no harm” thing. This is why they normally have some random first-year nursing student set the IV. And also why so many executions have failed in spectacular fashion because they couldn’t find a vein, or the IV pops out or whatever.