In light of the recent federal halts to three executions in Ohio, I saw this an opportune a time as ever to assess the supposed value of having the death penalty in the United States.

First though, a little background. According to a BBC article, on Sept. 15, the execution of Romell Broom was abandoned after Ohio officials failed to find a vein. Failed to find a vein? Amazing enough, Broom is not alone. Following Broom’s failed lethal injection, Lawrence Reynolds and Darryl Durr had their executions delayed as well, pending a court hearing. Thankfully, Gov. Ted Strickland halted Broom’s failed execution. (According to ABC News, the attempted lethal injection had taken over two hours, the longest in Ohio’s history).

After hearing of this unfortunate incident, I couldn’t help wondering why Ohio’s state government would actually hire people who supposedly have the know-how to administer the lethal injection, but in fact, clearly don’t have any understanding whatsoever. With inept persons such as these in charge of administering the highest penalty in our country, how can one argue against the fact that this case, and, most likely many others, is blatantly in contradiction to the Eighth Amendment?

I agree with Broom’s defense attorney Tim Sweeney that it goes without saying this is a case of “cruel and unusual punishment.” The evidence Sweeney presented confirms this even more. For example, according to Newsweek, during the attempted execution, Broom was pricked more than 18 times to find usable veins on both arms and one leg. Some of those injections hit bone or muscle. We cannot on the one hand call ourselves a civilized society and on the other hand have public officials perpetrate flagrant maltreatment. If we indeed pride ourselves as a nation governed by laws, then we can neither violate the rights of a victim nor the rights of a criminal, no matter how grievous the crime.

Let this appalling event be a time to reflect on how advantageous it is to have the death penalty at all. Murder, whether it is initiated by an individual or by the state is in my mind morally wrong and runs counter to the notion of human dignity. Moreover, I believe the continuation of this practice reflects poorly on our society in that it is justified many times solely on the grounds that it is practical and economical to execute. Why should anyone (yes, even the government) have the right to kill people on the basis of monetary concerns? I might be a little more persuaded to lean toward the pro-death penalty camp if state-sanctioned executions were in fact fast and painless, yet, clearly even that cannot become a reality.

Returning to Romell Broom, Ohio officials have considered his case, and, as a result, proposed the introduction of new procedures. This is possibly the most frightening aspect of all, for the main reason that in order to implement these new measures, doctors will inevitably be needed. Naturally, this creates a major dilemma because it is ethically troublesome to have doctors oversee, and possibly partake in, state-sanctioned executions.

In the end, I believe it is difficult, albeit, not impossible, for us as a society to try to look toward a more reasonable approach. Let’s actually combat the social problems that create criminals who are sentenced to death row rather than merely killing in retaliation. I know that if I were a family member of a victim such as this, I would not seek closure in witnessing the execution of the murderer. Rather, I would take the advice of Don Corleone in “The Godfather:” “You talk about vengeance. Is vengeance going to bring your son back to you? Or my boy to me?”