The death penalty is always a touchy subject. Death in general tends to evoke discomfort in a lot of people. It makes sense, we’re mortal creatures, and we like living, so dying isn’t really something we want at the moment. We literally try to extend our lives for as long as we possibly can to escape death.

Don’t worry, though. This isn’t going to be an existential article. I’m no philosopher by any means, and I don’t like to dwell too long on those thoughts. This discussion is about a very real and interesting dillemma that has arisen in the United States, more specifically, Texas.

Texas is a state that is well-known for its execution rate. For the most part, they’re very proud of it. Texas has accounted for over one-third of the lethal injection executions performed in the United States since the 1970’s. That’s quite a statistic, almost terrifying at that.

They’ve hit a little snag in the execution industry. Very recently, Texas came down to only one lethal injection. That’s it. They had one dose of the lethal drug left. Now, you may ask, how does a state run out of a drug that it uses so often? You’d think that they’d have that stuff being shipped in constantly so that they would never have to deal with a shortage.

The problem lies in the purchase of the drug – namely that most companies will not willingly produce the drugs because they heard of its use for lethal injections and did not want it to be associated with it, so they have significantly reduced the producion and sales of these, and have outright stopped selling it to certain buyers who might use it for these fateful purposes.

Because of this, Texas has had to turn to third party manufacturers and dealers to obtain the lethal drugs they need to carry out their executions. They often are very quiet about how they get the drug and how much they actually purchase. However, even demand in the underground drug trade is coming up short, and Texas is running out.

Now, this news is interesting and all, but the big question on everyone’s minds is: Is the death penalty necessary?

That’s a very tough question to answer. The big debate is over how ethical or humane an execution is, and also whether or not a criminal who has earned such a dire sentence should be allowed to leave without any sort of suffering. At this point, the justice system kind of flips over on its back, because it’s really a lose-lose situation in the eyes of the general public. Either we incarcerate someone indefinitely and have to pay taxes towards holding them in the prison, or we execute them immediately, but they don’t really have to suffer or feel any real punishment for their deed.

Many would argue that death is the ultimate punishment. Life being taken away is a very big deal to us. However, others would argue that they don’t have to suffer any pain compared to those who have been affected by their crimes and have to live with the consequences wrought by the criminal. It’s really a fine line.

Personally, I think the death penalty is something we should be embracing. Now, before people grab their pitchforks and charge, I’d like to explain my point of view.

I totally understand and for the most part agree with the argument that death is too swift and easy a punishment for a criminal of that caliber to endure. However, I think holding someone in a cell until they eventually die is more of a detriment to us.

Here’s the deal: while they would most certainly suffer by having to live out the rest of their lives in prison, we also have to suffer by paying for their time and food in prison. Not only that, but if we keep doing that, our prisons get too full. And while the most dangerous and awful criminals are still locked up, we very often have to release prisoners that, while they weren’t as bad as the lifers, are still significantly bad. Now they get off of their sentences early because we decided to basically hold on to someone because we want them to have to take longer to keel over.

There’s no doubt that this will be argued about for centuries to come, but you have to wonder if we will ever agree on a standard, something that could potentially benefit us while still fitting ethical and moral standards.

-Cameron MacDonald