Call Jack Bauer.

Everyone knows that capital punishment does nothing to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. And that capital punishment is more about revenge for the victim's family and society-at-large than anything else ('There, he's dead now too. Serves him right.").

But what we do not ever acknowledge is how depressing it is that society kills people legally in order to exact that revenge and will not own up to it.

Why are we discussing how to kill people instead of why we kill them at all? I'm no bleeding heart for the criminals who kill others, sometimes in brutal and less than humane ways. But I feel no compullsion to get down in that gutter with them.

If we have to kill them, why should it be cleaner, more antispetic, and less messy than whatever crime they've committed? Where is it written that legally authorized murder of another person should be palatable to the observers? Maybe it should not.

Murder is murder. If we are going to do it, then show it for what it is and stop all this nonsense about cleaning it up for the observers or giving them fair warning that it's really torture in disguise. Would the victim's family really care if the murderer was tortured?

I'm sure there is a better way to kill people. We should have asked Saddam what he recommended before we hanged him in some barn-like structure with cell phone photo witnesses.

Scalia is a disgrace to the United States and to humanity. Period.

others as you would have them do unto you.

I want to first note that I would rather see this discussion on problems with lethal injection be an academic one, because the death penalty should be abolished for all crimes. Although there are many criminals the world would be better off without, the fact of the matter remains that the death penalty is administered arbitrarily in our society, disproportionately to the poor and mentally ill, by a government and justice system prone to error and even the occasional deliberate conviction of the innocent. It is also expensive in comparison to lifelong incarceration. Rather than risk adding to the 23 innocent individuals we now believe have been wrongly put to death in recent decades, I would argue that the death penalty is fundamentally incompatible with the values of a society that claims to be free and should be abandoned.

Euthanasia has been legal in the Netherlands since 2002, and the US system for lethal injection should look at their methods for answers on how the ending of life might be done with humanity. The basic mechanisms used do seem similar, but it's worth noting that the Dutch have also created an effective barbituate cocktail for individuals seeking to die with dignity by their own hand, a choice for self-determination that many of us may one day wish we had. It's clear that they have thought about how to do this effectively and painlessly.

From what I know, the Dutch system for actively administered euthanasia begins with the same sedative sodium thiopental intravenously administered to induce a coma. I am not aware if the dose differs, although the professionalism of administration most likely would. After this has taken effect, Pancuronium is administered to stop the breathing and cause death. I am not clear if a level of consciousness (LOC) or other brain activity monitor is used to verify that the person is actually out entirely after the sedative is given, although this would seem to be a simple solution to avoiding the risk of any pain perception with the administration of the terminal drugs. The use of an LOC device would be a reasonable way to mitigate the risk of pain with lethal injection, although it would certainly be better to avoid the risk of executing the innocent entirely.

John Roberts delicate airs and softer manners might make the punishments he hands down seem more humane than those delivered by Antonin Scalia, but close inspection reveals them to be the same.

Isn't a life sentence a death sentence anyway? So what's the hurry?

Obviously, to the individual plaintiffs there is literally nothing to lose, but the idea of asking this particular Supreme Court to definitively answer a question about the death penalty is a bit like asking Dick Cheney his opinion about the Scooter Libby prosecution, or asking Ryan Seacrest if he thinks American Idol is helpful to his career. You know the answer, and you're going to disagree with it.

Anyone who thinks it doesn't matter who is President should keep a picture of Sam Alito on their mirror.

The simple solution is to switch lethal injection to an overdose of morphine. No way to claim the condemned is suffering from morphine. The only I reason can fathom as to why morphine is not used is that the condemned might die with a smile on his or her face which I find to be a truly sad commentary on capital punishment.

The point is that lethal injection is not INTENDED to be torture. We should work to ensure that there is 1) no possibility that an innocent person is subjected to it 2) ensure that only the most egregious crimes can be punished this way and 3) do everything in our power to make sure that the criminal does not suffer. They may be monsters - we aren't. Overall, though, I believe that society benefits from having the death penalty, if it can stop some criminals from taking the extra step that they know will earn it for them.

Waterboarding IS intended to be torture. It's victims have been convicted of no wrong. It's premise, that useful information can be gained by torturing a presumably guilty person, is inherently flawed.

the writer says that 'waterboarding was once prosecuted as a war crime.' Cite the case. Sounds like bullshit.

For those of you whose sensibilities are offended by torturing dirtbags, I think you ought to go live somewhere where there aren't real men who are doing great violence on your behalf. Really. I am so tired of it. I spent two tours in Iraq, one in the Army and one in the Marines. The people we fought are lower than camel shit. IF we have to torture a few in order to keep the mission on track, I say go for it.

I respect the arguments of those who disagree but they ought to have the courage of their convictions and move out of a country whose safety results from the effecting of these policies they find so abhorent.

As for the death penalty. I am all for it but wouldn't utter a peep of protest if it was completely outlawed. I am just so tired of hearing the liberal sissy boys whining about it.