In 2018, the state of Tennessee executed Billy Ray Irick using a lethal injection cocktail that some experts said was tantamount to torture and had been implicated in several botched executions. Irick’s case was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. The execution was allowed to proceed, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that using the drug cocktail was a violation of the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Several other inmates on death row in Tennessee sued the state in the hopes of being able to die by an alternative method, such as by firing squad. In your opinion, does the method of execution matter? If the state chooses to enforce the death penalty, does it have a moral responsibility to use the most humane method possible? Explain your reasoning.

Enforcement of the Death Penalty

1. Does the state have a moral responsibility to use the most humane method possible in applying the death penalty?

Obviously, the answer is a resounding YES.  Why, we are all aware that the death penalty is applied to criminals who have violated another person's right to life.

But, must the state follow criminals to commit the same crime in the name of justice?  Are there no alternatives to the death penalty?  Have the states so numbed their consciences that we can conclude that state apparatuses are not operated by human beings with conscience?  Have we not realized that the death penalty does not deter criminal activities and tendencies?  By applying the death penalty, the state is obviously making itself guilty of snuffing out life, instead of protecting it.  This is why it has become easy for the state to sanction all manners of abortion in the name of giving women freedom to their bodies.

The state does not have the moral right to enforce the death penalty and nothing is humane in the method it may prescribe or use.  The state, therefore, should never choose to enforce the death penalty.  It must explore other alternatives to the death penalty.  Life belongs to God, alone.  Since the state cannot give life, it can only protect life, it must not take life, it should protect and defend it at all cost.

Explanation:

The death penalty or capital punishment is inhumane and oppressive.  No sensible society allows it in its legal codes.  It has never been a perfect deterrent to violent crimes.  Moreover, it does not serve the interests of anybody.  It is a usurpation of the divine right.

answer:

"it is often classified as either a schedule ii or schedule iii substance, making it illegal to possess for personal use or distribution. crystal meth can be ingested, injected, or smoked. it is a highly addictive substance and can lead to many different personal, medical, and legal problems."

this is the link

hope your friend dont get in trouble

answer:

yes, obviously. that violates r@pe and p*dophilia laws, which are some pretty serious laws if you ask me. and that is just nasty!

explanation: