Putting murderers to death by drugs is a bit too humane, so a fair point there Hoof. It would put the fear of God into most people facing a firing squad or hang man's rope, so maybe not a bad idea at all

Clearly even US drug companies are uncomfortable with their drugs being used for lethal injections so, if what you say is true, it's not all that unusual that others would feel the same way.

The US don't give two s***s about what the EU thinks about the death penalty there. It just so happens that it's something that's very polarising within US society, so what has happened with Pfizer isn't surprising.

What a pleasant fellow you are. I get more fresh air than you probably do. My view is my view and if you don't like it fair enough, but I wouldn't result in calling someone a moron because I disagree with them. You seem pretty angry, maybe one of these drug companies could supply you with some Valium or something.

I didn't advocate Pfizer not being able to do that did I ?

I just rejoiced in the fact that some really nasty serial killers like Bundy and Manson had some of their own "medicine" served up to them rather than a soft death sentence.

Not the first time you've put words in my mouth Rumpole!

That's not how medical trials work. You need as diverse a population study as possible.

They serve as an example. People in prison, often have contributed to society. Prisoners contribute quite a lot to society, as they form the basis by which we establish acceptable behaviour and our own social morality. The problem of a death penalty, from a moral and ethical stand point has always been that its retribution, not justice. The second major issue is that it doesn't serve as a deterrent to very serious crimes either, as murders tend to occur in the 'heat of the moment' or tied to very powerful incentives.

Next of course, its applied somewhat arbitrarily and disproportionately across socio-economic grounds.

As a note, the US spends more in getting to execution than it does on keeping prisoners in prison without parole, because the system of appeals and constitutional requirements to determine the legality of an execution are exhaustive in the extreme.

Finally of course, there is a worrying level of questionable convictions, and incidents of people being exonerated. Most disturbing is the way that since re-introducing the death penalty to the US, the systems have become geared towards making executions easier to achieve by restricting the appeals processes and legal responsibilities of bodies involved towards a specific outcome (i.e. executions, over reviews of new evidence).

Finally, in the US, there is no fair and impartial legal system.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

It wouldn't. It might free up one or two cells in about 10-20 years time. Firstly, because you'd have 10-20 years of appeal and referrals through the court system before you could establish that the death penalty was fairly and arbitrarily applied in the case. Not to mention the legal issues revolving around comparisons to other sentences in other cases, rights appeals, appeals on evidence and procedure etc.

The amount of hassle its proven in the states is staggering (it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life).

Of course if you mean arbitrarily just killing people convicted of certain crimes, then yes, it would free up prison spaces, but that will never happen and is a total fantasy.

And, yes, its the right decision not to supply the US with drugs utilised in executions, as these are medical drugs, produced from medical research - As such it betrays the Hippocratic oath of those doctors involved in research to allow their work to be used to cause harm.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]