I think we are misunderstanding each other because what you wrote here doesn’t line up with what I wrote. Not to say I agree or disagree with you, just I don’t think we are on the same page.

I don’t like your wording. Perhaps you meant something different, and if you did correct me.

Going by your wording since imprisonment is a common punishment, any method of imprisonment is constitutional, even something like a pillory. I can’t see putting someone in a pillory for any long length of time as constitutional.

It could kill slower, or even worse make the painkillers ineffective. There’s even been cases where both happened. Survivors describe the ordeal as ‘lava in the veins.’ That’s right, people survived lethal injection.

So yeah, ‘kill him slower’ is on the table. Longest ‘successful’ lethal injection was 1 hour 57 minutes. It was not pretty.

Hey reform based punishment is unpopular in the states. You got sadistic superheroes like the Punisher who go overboard on the ‘punishment.’ But how often do you hear of a popular film or book that’s all about reforming a violent offender?

Hell it’s political suicide to even look like you are ‘weak on crime.’ People crave blood much more over restitution or rehabilitation.

Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It’s up for debate whether a swift painless death fits the criteria. It’s not up for debate if torturing a man to death is cruel or unusual punishment.

It’s too clean. In my opinion the strongest proponents of the death penalty want there to be suffering, or at the very least look like the dying man is suffering.