Are Those Sentenced to Death Entitled to “Pain-free” Experience?

Twenty years after convicted killer Jeffrey Landrigan was sentenced to death, the state of Arizona was finally permitted to exact justice, and did so, by injecting a lethal dose of drugs into Landrigan’s guilty being on Tuesday, October 26, 2010.

---

It took 20 years to remove Landrigan from Arizona’s free food, housing and health care system because leftist lawyers and judges obstructed justice for two decades in order to protect a murderer. Oh, if all of that legal maneuvering and intellect were applied to stopping the wanton slaughter of the unborn! Landrigan met his maker after the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the defense which had filed suit to block justice because one of the lethal drugs was from a foreign source and might be “unsafe.” Unsafe? Good grief, the man was a convicted killer who murdered a fellow Arizonan. Landrigan received a fair trial and was convicted based on the evidence. Have leftist lawyers lost sight of the fact that the sole objective of the death penalty is to inflict an unsafe situation of sufficient magnitude to remove the convicted from our midst, and to the next dimension, whatever that might be? The whole process is unsafe—at least for the condemned. It’s supposed to be that way! Of course, Elena Kagan, President Obama’s latest addition to the bench, voted in the minority: In other words, Kagan bought into the scam about the safety of killing drugs and voted to keep killer Landrigan alive. Lefties like Kagan pound the cement in protest, claiming that lethal injection can be “cruel and unusual,” and, therefore, a no-no according to the 8th amendment. But hold on a minute and think this through. The Constitution does NOT prohibit the death penalty outright, although that is what Kagan and other bleeding-heart lefties always try to accomplish with endless and mindless appeals and appeals on appeals, all devoted to denying justice to a deserving killer. Again, the Constitution does NOT prohibit the death penalty. Clearly, the Founders were not opposed to the death penalty: They obviously understood the need for death by execution in dealing with very serious offenses. Yes, the 8th Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual” punishment, but does any serious student of American law believe that death by injection meets the cruel and unusual standard, even if foreign drugs are used? At the time that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, the most common forms of execution were hanging and being shot by a firing squad. Neither was prohibited by the Constitution. Raise your hands if you really believe that a lethal injection is in the same league with hanging or being shot? Finally, just who in hell came up with the sick, goofy idea that the death penalty should be a “pain-free” experience? All who raised your hands: What is the Constitutional basis for such a crazy notion?