I'm sure everyone has herd about the latest botched executions, last one in Arizona where the process took 2 hours. Something similar happened recently also, seems the concoction of drugs were from outside the USA, as the ones in the USA were banned.
By all means if we are going to execute, it should be swift, but what is cruel or unusual punishment, and where are the boundaries of that definition? Their is considerable debate about this subject, and it ranges from abolishing it, to no compassion whatsoever for the executed. If you are in favor of abolishing it, the only alternative IMHO is live in prison without possibility of parole. That in itself begs the question of cruel and unusual punishment, with regards to what happens inside prison walls, general population, monotony, and a life of literally no hope ever. It the worst cases, extreme bad cases go to total isolation from anything, no human contact, 23 hours in cell, 1 hour in a completely isolated outdoor yard. Do they deserve it? Probably yes. Would you prefer death by execution--probably yes.
Exactly how painless, and without suffering whatsoever should we take this level of standard for an execution? Not a single person on earth is guaranteed, we will not suffer long lingering illness in our death process. Did this man in Arizona suffer unduly, or was even 2 hours (in which he was unconscious in 5 minutes) really suffering. How many people who have had loved ones pass away, were in long term care, had months to years of severe pain, couldn't breath, or control bodily functions, suffered great lengths of time until finally succumbing from this life. What exactly should be considered cruel, unusual, or suffering?
What are the 2 ends of the scale when for instance a 20 year old is sentenced to life, and the 80 year old man (one just killed a home burglar in Long Beach, shot her while running down an alley) sentenced to life? If it were the death penalty, the 20 year old would be 40-50 by the time is happened, and the 80 year old would die naturally within all the appeals. The scales of justice are never equal. In the Arizona case, this man murdered 2 people 25 years ago, so got 25 years more life waiting to be executed.
Is it a simple deduction of murder is murder, and the death penalty is simply murder, or is it simply justice that has strict criteria, extensive consideration, plus decades of trial appeals? Even so there are some who were innocent, and executed, because evidence convicted them, or they were not able to afford a quality defense. The 2 ends of the scale are some poor kid from the ghetto with a public defender and OJ Simpson with his dream team army of lawyers. How is justice equal according to wealth?
As to the nature of the Arizona mans crime, whatever he got he deserved to maximum penalty, so how can we have any compassion in view of his crime, 2 dead, and families forever changed? Do we really care if he rots in prison, or gets whatever penalty he gets? If that revenge or is that justice under a civilized society of laws and rules, and penalties for bad behavior.
My opinion is the death penalty is not a deterrent, but evidently neither is life without parole, so the harshness of penalty does not affect the choice to do the crime. If jail worked we would not have so many repeaters, so prisons do not rehabilitate. The prisons keep getting fuller, and so does death row, where the inmates are confined, but also not in the general population where unthinkable things happen. What is the answer, who knows. But if are going to execute, the method should be swift and sure. I have a lot more compassion for the victims, than this person, who had an easy death compared to all of us someday.