Lethal Injections: Back On The Menu

To be honest, I'm really not sure whether to shout out, "Praise the Lord, and pass the syringes..," or be a bit despondent about the decision. Part of me is glad for the 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court Justices. The other part says, perhaps there should be some white hot movement in ensuring they have the right guy.

Reason I bring these two points up is, in California, the state in which I live, we have well over 600 inmates sitting on death row. In a California jail, you have a much higher probability of dying of old age on death row, than the sentence actually being carried out. Depending on the felon's age, that goes from a sizable expense, to a VERY sizable expense. Housing, feeding, medical care, etc. That money doesn't just appear from no where. That's tax payer money giving that criminal HDTV and other frivolous amenities.

Yet, at the same time, there have been a considerable number of inmates released over the last couple years because of results from DNA testing and the like. From what I recall, none of them were on death row, but that's actually irrelevant here. Some were falsely accused by being "in the wrong place at the wrong time," and happened to resemble the real suspect. I'd actually be bothered a bit to find out the wrong guy was juiced.

The sad part legally is, the entire moratorium was created because of the "cruel and unusual punishment" angle, also referred to as the Eighth Amendment. Personally, I don't get it. In many cases, the felon, caused a very cruel death in the first place. So that should have made the whole argument moot from the start. Which is almost how the final decision was made when you consider it for a moment. As found on the NewsOK.com site, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing an opinion that was joined by two other justices, said;

"Some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution — no matter how humane — if only from the prospect of error in following the required procedure.. It is clear, then, that the Constitution does not demand the avoidance of all risk of pain in carrying out executions.. Roberts, whose opinion was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel Alito, also wrote that a death row inmate couldn't successfully challenge a state's method of execution "merely by showing a slightly or marginally safer alternative.""

Personally, I'd like to see a little more "eye for an eye" kinda punishment put into use. Molest a kid? Perhaps we should cuff your wrists to your ankles and toss you in a cell with Bubba. "Bubba, you got one hour with him, and he better be alive when the times up. Enjoy!" Did the kid die from the damage of the molestation? "Oh, wait Bubba. You can forget that last part. Have at it!" Might put a bit of a damper on child molestations, don't ya think?

But anyways, there's plenty more about this found on the following few links. Even the Guardian had a bit about it. Read on! Guardian.co.uk. NPR.org. AP.Google.com.