I support administering the death penalty for capital crimes where lives have been taken or gravely endangered, or where other people’s lives have been horrendously violated. Still, I do have my reservations. According to some reports – mostly validated by the tenacious search and proof of wrong convictions by investigators – as many as five percent of the people on death row may very well be innocent. Morally: We cannot allow that. In terms of economics, it often costs the government(s) much more money than if the convicted felon is sentenced to life in prison.

There are many arguments, both pro and con, concerning the death penalty. However, this is not the main gist of this writing.

The Supreme Court handed down a defeat to one prisoner on death row in Arkansas. The decision was five to four. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Bryers mentioned that the questionable use of the chemical midazolam may cause undue pain and suffering to a prisoner about to be executed. If this be truly the case (admittedly, I have no way of knowing), then isn’t it time to substitute this drug with a more effective one?

Several years ago I underwent open heart surgery. Of course, since I am not a Zen person and the surgeons were not trained for its use to put me under, I was put to sleep with the use of ether. They also used a secondary chemical intravenously – I assume as a backup. Within about four seconds of breathing under the mask, I was totally out. Obviously, I woke up twenty three hours later, and without any pain. The during and the after affects were completely without any pain.

The question that I have is, if there are questionable affects of using midazolam, or any other type of chemical then why use it? Why not use ether, or any other known drug that avoids the endurance of pain?

I don’t know the answer, but is it possible that it may be so obvious that we cannot see it dancing in front of us? Maybe I am totally off base with my question. If so, why not have it explained to me and the many doubters?