Lethal Injection Is the Inverse Essay

Regardless of how heinous the murderer's crime is, the constitution stipulates that "cruel and unusual" punishment is illegal, and because the constitution is written with an assumption of equality, this suggests that the standard applies to everyone. Furthermore, Saunders and other pro-lethal injection lobbyists' opinion that lethal injection is not cruel due to the amount of anesthetic given are directly encountered by physical evidence, such as the burn marks Weil notes were observed on the body of one executed man and the lack of execution training that Weil argues is commonly practiced. In addition, proponents of legal injection may note that lethal injection is not unusual, in that 37 of the 50 states use this method (Weil). But when viewed in globally, the United States, paired with the likes of China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and Sudan, performed 91% of all executions (Amnesty International). Thus, among industrialized democracies, lethal injection, executions in general, are far from usual. Thus, in the face of opposition, it has become increasingly clear that execution via legal injection is legally unacceptable in that it is unconstitutional, illegal.

In additional legality, however, legal injection can be struck down because of its immoral or unethical status. While arguing morality and ethics is always a difficult task because many people have different values, and therefore different sets of morals and ethics, by looking at the common and popular value of human rights, one can suggest that lethal injection is, indeed, immoral or unethical. According to Amnesty International, many international treaties have called for the abolition of the death penalty. These treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights, have suggested the immorality and unethical nature of the death penalty (Amnesty International). If the death penalty itself is immoral, then lethal injection, by default must also be immoral.

For those that claim international treaties have no bearing on American issues, however, doctors' opinions on the death penalty continue to suggest its status as unethical and immoral.In fact, Weil states, "virtually no respected physicians participate in executions as doing so violates medical ethics." Furthermore, Krone notes an even larger ethical problem with lethal injection and the death penalty as a whole -- the prospect of executing an innocent person. Krone, a former inmate who was innocent, had almost been executed for the murder he did not commit. As probably the largest ethical issue with lethal injection, the execution of an innocent person is not a risk many would be willing to take. Thus, based on the fact that many international movements have viewed lethal injection as immoral or unethical, physicians will not participate in it for the same reason, and innocents are being accused of crimes, and sentenced to death row, one can contend that lethal injection is not only illegal, but also unethical and immoral.

Although the death penalty is an important issue and a many-sided debate, the use of lethal injection to execute another person is an event that can no longer be tolerated in this country. Despite the fact that many suggest the practice is both legal and moral, based on information that inmates do not experience pain and that they deserve what is coming to them, proof of the pain experienced by inmates in addition to their inability express that pain, paired with overwhelming evidence from many communities dedicated to proving the unethical nature of the activity, suggests that lethal injection is both illegal and unethical in the United States.

Works Cited

Amnesty International. "Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty." Amnesty International.

October 2007. 21 November 2008. http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

Essig, Mark. "This is Going to Hurt." The New York Times. Date: Pages.

Krone, Ray. "Lethal Injection is the Wrong debate." Name of Paper 14 January 2008:

Saunders, Debra J. "Dishonest on the Death Penalty." San Francisco Chronicle 8 January 2008: B7.

The Constitution of the United States," Amendment 8.

Weil, Elizabeth. "It's Not….....