The Supreme Court has decided to review the lethal injection procedure used by states that have the death penalty to execute prisoners. To me, this is another stall tactic used by liberal lawyers to delay the sentence and to tie up the court system.
    I agree with the Constitution and its ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but I think the courts sometimes get carried away with protecting criminals and their rights. I feel the victims and their families’ rights are forgotten or ignored.
    I am surprised an ambitious lawyer hasn’t sued on behalf of a victim. The victim could claim their civil rights have been violated because the criminal wasn’t punished properly by the court system. Why should the criminals get all the protection?
    We as a society need to stop babying those people who won’t abide by the laws of society. Maybe some can be rehabilitated but some will be criminals no matter how much compassion society has for them. They live to prey on the weak.
    The Supreme Court needs to end the debate on capital punishment once and for all. Americans are in favor of the death penalty, so we are we still arguing about it?
    Capital punishment should be used for a couple of purposes. One is to punish an offender for their crimes and bring justice to the victim. The other is to deter other would be offenders from thinking the rewards of the crime outweigh the penalty.
    If criminals feel the punishment is not that bad or something that they can handle, then the deterrent of punishment is not working and the whole justice system needs to be reexamined. Delaying the process also weakens the deterrent of capital punishment. If it takes ten to fifteen years to execute a person, then the meaning is lost on most people, especially the criminals.
    If a person was executed after a short but reasonable time, then people would make more of the association.
    Over the years, there have been many different ways to execute criminals. Each method seemed to be the most humane at the time, but there have always been objections.
    As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, a new proposed method of a single injection of barbiturates would be challenged too. The Supreme Court should rule that any method of execution that is not purposely cruel or unusual should be acceptable. That way we don’t spend thousands of tax payer dollars and years of the court system’s time to figure out what is the best way to put someone to death without any discomfort or pain.
    In most capital punishment cases, the victims probably died in extreme fear and pain. Why do we have to treat the perpetrator with so much compassion?
    The State of Missouri has been tied up in court for several years because of a similar objection. The criminal defense attorney is arguing that since the person administering the injections is not a medical doctor, there is a possibility of the drugs not being administered correctly.
    I think this argument is another weak attempt to delay the sentence. If the person is trained in the procedure and the procedure is documented and the steps are performed according to the procedure, then the State has performed its obligation to execute someone in a humane way. How will the State or anyone prove the process worked or didn’t work as it was supposed to? I don’t see anyone volunteering to test out the procedure.
    We don’t need to burden doctors with this responsibility. We need medical doctors treating people who need medical care not administering lethal injections to criminals just because a non-doctor might cause the criminal some pain as they are dying.
    I applaud the liberals for their compassion and willingness to help the criminals and anyone else they think is not getting a fair trial but enough is enough.
    Americans want the death penalty and they want the crime rate to decline. That means we need to prosecute criminals and punish them. I hope the Supreme Courts settles this issue once and for all.

-Steve White 

    “Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.” –Hugo Black
    Since John Marshall established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, the Court has wrestled with the issue of legislating from the bench.
    The Bill of Rights has been stretched to the point where it cannot snap back. Even Alexander Hamilton would roll over in his grave after seeing the amount of authority and influence consolidated in the federal government. That being said, the Supreme Court now has an opportunity to return to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution.
    People have argued that the Constitution is not static and must adapt to suit the times. However, when one piece of the Constitution is ignored or removed, then an unacceptable precedent has been set.
    Recently, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a case from Kentucky questioning the constitutionality of the  lethal injection. The case, Baze v. Rees, contends that Kentucky’s use of lethal injection to execute death row inmates violates the eighth amendment as a form of cruel and unusual punishment. The defendants argued that if the chemical cocktail used in the process is not administered properly inmates can suffer an intensely painful death that amounts to being tortured.
    The most common method of lethal injection involves a three chemical cocktail. The first drug acts as an anesthetic to knock the prisoner out. A muscle relaxant is then injected to stop the prisoner’s breathing and a third drug is used to stop the heart.
    The inability of people administering the drugs to find suitable veins for injection and not using enough anesthetic have been cited as the main reasons why lethal injection is a cruel form of execution.
    If a person does not receive enough anesthetic he would be in intense pain during his execution but completely unable to move or communicate. Better training for the people performing lethal injections and using only a lethal dose of anesthetic have been proposed as solutions.
    I do not support the death penalty. The death penalty does not act as a deterrent to violent crime. The death penalty discriminates against minorities and the poor. Most importantly, convictions based on circumstantial evidence have put too many innocent people on death row.
    The exoneration of inmates because of DNA evidence serves as a grim reminder of what can happen when the desire to punish someone supersedes real justice.
    I also believe that our prison system needs to be reformed. Not letting prisoners surf the internet and watch TV does not qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
    Limiting the contact of murderers and rapist with the outside world to a visit with their lawyers does not violate the eighth amendment. Some people will scoff at the idea that causing unnecessary pain to a person who is going to die amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. They may think the idea is stupid, irreverent to the people these criminals murdered, and disrespectful to the families of the victims.
    People will ask why the murderers deserve more sympathy than their victims. They do not, period. Nevertheless, when we make one exception and ignore the wisdom of the Constitution, who knows what rights will be trampled underfoot next.

-Neil Rapp