As I am sure most of you have seen in the news lately the great state we live in has made the news internationally for using a drug that is normally used to on animals to euthanize to execute a man on death row. Here is a link to the story for those who haven't yet heard about this or haven't heard much:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BG0IM20101217
Just for the sake of a interesting discussion, is this a proper alternative? Shoud the execution have been stayed until the drug that is normally used been obtained? Could this give others on death row a way to fight and/or prolong their execution? Would opinion of the use of this drug been different had it not worked the way it did or was supposed and in turn caused undue suffering? Would the family of the inmate then have legal recourse with the state for using this drug and causing undue suffering? Not that you have to really answer any of these questions, as they are just the ones that popped into my head when I saw the story. Just wondering really what everyone else thought as well.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BG0IM20101217
Just for the sake of a interesting discussion, is this a proper alternative? Shoud the execution have been stayed until the drug that is normally used been obtained? Could this give others on death row a way to fight and/or prolong their execution? Would opinion of the use of this drug been different had it not worked the way it did or was supposed and in turn caused undue suffering? Would the family of the inmate then have legal recourse with the state for using this drug and causing undue suffering? Not that you have to really answer any of these questions, as they are just the ones that popped into my head when I saw the story. Just wondering really what everyone else thought as well.