Death Penalty: A Fresh Look

Taking into consideration that not all lethal injection practices result in extreme suffering from its participants, revising the already widely used method may be the best alternative.  In order to achieve the same results, with little to none of the excruciatingly painful side effects, the use of a single-drug alternative must be explored.  The first option, a barbiturate, can be given in one large dose, suppressing the central nervous system, and ultimately resulting in death.  The next alternative, a fast-acting narcotic such as fentanyl, which has a potency of approximately 81x that of morphine, would ensure comfort while suppressing the subject’s respiratory system.  Finally, sodium pentobarbital, the drug used in animal euthanasia, needs to be explored for human use.  When given as an overdose, the drug causes rapid unconsciousness, respiratory arrest, paralysis of the diaphragm, and collapse of the lungs.  Lastly, the drug would then suppress cardiac activity, thus causing death.  By simply eliminating the use of the paralyzing agent, we would be able to ensure comfort throughout the entire process.

Finally, in order to further refine the use of the death penalty, this form of punishment needs to be held for only the most heinous of cases.  As one of the only countries left with death, the United States should preserve the death penalty for cases of terrorism, inhumane attacks on human rights, and for the killing of children, police officers, and other emergency personnel.  “Indeed, the decision that capital punishment maybe the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community’s belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death” (Supreme Court of the United States of America).  For all other high crimes (such as first degree murder) the highest form of punishment available would be life without parole. 

It is very likely that those who are against death because of its moral fallibility concerning the execution of the innocent, will embrace this reform due to its ability to shorten the margin of error.  The claim that too many innocents are being put to death because of racial or economic status would no longer have substance.  Since the death penalty would be reserved for only very specific cases, state funds would also be more readily available to further our advancements in the use of the single cocktail approach.  Furthermore, capital punishment would cease to be considered “cruel and unusual” to most, since it would only be held for the most extreme of cases, those that show extreme contempt for human life.  Finally, by taking the position of capital punishment reform, I believe we will be able to appease the larger audience.  For example, those in favor of the status quo will find comfort in the notion the death penalty still exists.  While those in favor of its abolishment will be subdued due to the understanding that safeguards are now in place for the innocent, while those that must be put to death will now have a much more peaceful option.

Although it seems simple to say that the death penalty affects those that may have been sentenced to it, the truth is the range of the issue reaches much, much further.  For example, we must not only consider the inmate themselves, we must also take into account their families, the victim and their families, the jury issuing such a penalty, the judge, attorneys, communities, prison officials, law makers, and every other tax-paying citizen.  Keeping in mind that our focus here is not the cost of the issue, it’s the constitutionality and ultimate inhumanity behind its current methods, the price of human suffering should also not be forgotten.  Until a unanimous decision can be made across all levels of government; capital punishment and its aftermath needs to be reformed.  It is the ultimate form of sentencing, one that should not be haphazardly applied in the name of justice.