Cruel and Unusual, or Just Punishment? - Cal Thompson, 1st period

This article explains the potential weight of a legal case making its way to the supreme court: in 2009, lethal injections failed to execute a man on death row. Does the court have the right to attempt to execute him again? Some argue that this is cruel and unusual punishment under the constitution; the man was subjected to a large amount of pain when a major vein in his arm could not be found and he was penetrated with a needle multiple times (once even hitting the bone). Others say that this is not cruel and unusual punishment because the court did not intend to cause pain, and that, until this man has been successfully executed, his punishment will not have been carried out. The article provides evidence from both sides, stating both that the man was convicted of raping and killing a 14-year-old girl 32 years ago and that he has maintained a claim of innocence. While his alleged crime is extreme, does the court have the right to attempt to kill him a second time?

The death penalty has been a major point of division in recent years. The moral implications of capital punishment continue to fuel court cases and family disputes. Many states employ a cocktail of drugs for lethal injection to execute prisoners on death row, and these injections are rarely administered by people with medical experience because medical practitioners take an oath barring it. As a result, many executions are botched, and the painless factor of this "cocktail" is up for debate. Personally, I am strongly against the death penalty. Killing someone in self-defense is far different than killing someone while they are shackled in a designated room, no matter what they have done. Capital punishment is also psychologically damaging in many cases, as shown by the experiences of those who make it off of death row through new evidence. When we throw in the botched attempts and potential torture (even if it is "accidental"), along with the increased likelihood of capital punishment being the prescribed "justice" for non-white men, it seems an extremely flawed and harmful process. this relates to moral consequences of executions throughout history, from the bloody Tudor era to Salem's Witch Trials. Let's not kill people unless it is literally the only option, and even then, let's try to think first.

Source:
http://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-12-08/broom-v-ohio-after-a-botched-execution-should-an-inmate-face-death-again