Botched Execution: Rethinking my Stance on Capital Punishment
The execution of Clayton Lockett prompts us to address some complex and profound questions, and forces us to revisit the overall view of state violence. An execution gone wrong-the Lockett incident propelled the debate surrounding capital punishment into the media, called into question the drugs used in the process, and promoted discourse of constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The incident attracted different responses from the public and further demonstrate that the views regarding the execution and overall capital punishment are polarized and not uniform.
One of the main issues contested is the legality and effectiveness of the drugs contained in the legal injection. Opponents of the lethal injection argue that there are unknown repercussions from the use of compounded drugs, or drugs cocktailed by laboratories. Lockett’s negative physical reactions to the drugs administered support the claim that these ad hoc drugs are not effective, painless, and humane as previously thought. Proponents argue that the drugs are effective and that the consequences are incidental and to be expected given the newness of this technology.
Another issue within the contention of the…show more content… Current modern society does not condone intentionally inflicting pain and torture as a form of punishment. Of the many responses in the media, few were in agreement with the excruciating pain and agony that Lockett endured during his botched execution. It is clear that there is no satisfaction in excessive cruelty, even proponents of the execution can argue that it should be done in a humane way. Some will say that the pain was incidental while others will argue that it was methodical carelessness. Nonetheless there is an agreement that the purposefully inflicting misery as a means of punishment is not
