[dda]

In the US there is an ongoing debate about the death penalty.

To debate whether or not there should be a death penalty is a reasonable and rational discussion to have, even if some on both sides don't avail themselves or either reason or rationality. However, centering on a local case, is a discussion which I find amusing in a "look at the spastic trying to eat an ice cream cone" sort of way.

The debate is over whether the way that California and most other states executes prisoners is "cruel and unusual" according to the Constitution. Now, clearly killing human beings by a governmental entity is far from being unusual so the real debate is around whether the method used, lethal injection, is "cruel" or not.

California uses a three part method. One injection causes unconsciousness, the second and third stop the heart and lungs from functioning.

The debate is about whether or not the unconscious inmate is aware of an unreasonable amount of pain before he dies. Death usually occurs in less than 15 minutes.

Is it just me or does it strike anyone else as a bit bizarre that we are wringing our hands over the possible pain of a person that we are killing? Now, this is not to say that if a method was employed that caused a great deal of pain, just to watch the bugger squirm, that there wouldn't be a lot of room for discussion. But the reason we are using lethal injection is because in the past, the same people who are arguing that it is too painful argued that other methods were too painful and that the only answer would be lethal injection.

The strongest argument against the death penalty is that it makes the entire justice system look insane.