So, among the issues next up for the Supreme Court is lethal injections, specifically whether they constitute cruel & unusual punishment. My personal view is that the two concepts can actually be split.

Ok, you can pick your jaw up off the floor now, I'll explain...

Consider the process taken to administer a lethal injection: the person being strapped in, the chemicals involved, the fact that even though this person is being deliberately killed they still do an alcohol swab on the area where the needle is to go in. If you ask me, an inordinate amount of process is being used for such a base purpose, if this scenario is anything, it's unusual.

That said, the alternative to that, within the assumption that the death penalty itself is acceptable, would be inherently to get more barbaric about it -- firing squad, electrocution, drowning, that kind of thing. It'd be a more honest communication of intent, but at the same time it'd remove the veneer of detachment from the act. This way, it'd be "normal" (people aren't usually killed by being administered hospital-quality drugs while strapped to a gurney, complete with witnesses...), but all but the sickest mind would agree it's needlessly malevolent, thus cruel.

Frankly, I find it disgusting that we bicker over how to kill, rather than asking why we do it. You can't argue self-defense when someone is already locked up.

(cross-posted to Psychopolitik)