barbiturates and bull

I know it was a long time ago, but when I was in high school I wrote a paper about capital punishment and I chose to argue against its use, and especially the use of lethal injection. My argument throughout the five pages (oh, the good old days) was that the paralytic element of the cocktail makes it impossible to gauge the amount of pain the injected feels, and therefore it is impossible to decide whether lethal injection falls under the category of cruel and unusual punishment.

I'll admit that since high school I have not been keeping incredibly up-to-date with the latest developments in the field. And of course, some of my opinions about capital punishment have changed, but I stick behind what I said, until someone provides me with really tight evidence that contradicts the previous argument.

So when I was reading the news today I stumbled upon this article and it brought me right back to that high school paper. And what I am left with upon reading this article is the feeling that I really have to get my act together. First, I need to conduct some current research about the controversy (since mine is from '04) and once I've done that I need to do some research on the Supreme Court. I was always sort of indifferent to the Supreme Court; for some reason, maybe because I've been trained that they are supremely genious prophets, I remained indifferent to them and their rulings.

But their decision to allow continuation of lethal injection, even after the argument that I summed up before was presented, shocked me. And what surprises me even more is this(from the New York Times article today):

"Lawyers for the prisoners contended that the barbiturate-only method is widely used by veterinarians, who are barred in many states from using the same paralyzing agent employed in executing people. But the court rejected that argument, stating that 'veterinary practice for animals is not an appropriate guide for humane practices for humans.'"

Since when are animal behaviors not indicators for human behavior? What of Pavlov? What of Watson? If the Supreme Court can deny these obvious counterpoints, my faith in them is definitely shaken.