No.

(Do they really still use electric chairs?)

Nope. It’s more green to save the electricity.

They should throw the switch and if it restarts his heart, let him go free.

Why would they save him?

Don’t take this the wrong way, but did you even think before you wrote this question? What would be the point in saving somebody who you were about to kill?

Obviously not, God got to him first.

I think it would be cruel to save a mans life and then take it.

Mmm. I feel like playing Devil’s Advocate today.

If they were promised a death by electric chair as an atonement for their deeds they deserve to get what they were promised. Dying out of the weakness of your body doesn’t carry as much pride.

No, not really, they should just leave ‘em alone.

I’m pretty sure they have to.

Since you have to be healthy to be executed and your sentence must be carried out.

@Parrappa
I don’t mind, I wondered if they would save him because he wouldn’t die in terms of being electrocuted, he would die of another reason.

I’m with ‘mo. I’m fairly certain they have to do everything they can to save the person, up until the time of their execution.

@Dog I’m pretty sure now we use a leathal injection (poison)

@asmonet beat me to it.

They have to attempt to save him, legally, so he will be healthy to be “properly” executed at the specific time.

Yeah… Give him an electric shock. With the chair.

@iRemy_y Lethal injection is the most common method, but it isn’t the only one.

I think it depends on the timing. If you mean he has a heart attack right there in the chair, then no, I don’t think they should save him. If, however, there is some time between the heart attack and when he is sentenced to die, I think they should save him. If there is the slimmest chance that evidence could come to light at the last moment that would change the circumstances, why should that opportunity be taken for that man to live?

Yes electric chairs are still used. And doctors are there to legally pronouce the inmate as deceased, but because of their hippocratic oath they cannot actively take part in the execution. But if someone is having a heart attack before the event, the doctor must do everything in his or her power to save the person (once again following the oath). Most likely, the inmate would be sent back to sit on death row until they are healthy enough to be executed. In order to remain constitutional and not violate the 8th amendment, the method of execution must be swift and painless, which is why letting an inmate die because of a heart attack just before the schedule execution cannot be allowed. It seems counterproductive, but it’s what the law says.

@SheWasAll_: Also pretty sure a doctor administers the lethal injection.

Never mind, I guess not. They’re prescribed, but technicians set up the IV bags in the US.

That’s a tough one.I’m pro-death penalty, but I think the entire legal system needs such an overhaul that many innocent get sent there, so I say they should be saved if at all possible, then given the death they were judged guilty enough to get. Why? I don’t know why, it’s a question with too much morality involved for me to truly have a developed opinion on, and that just feels right enough for now.

Because the person is legally condemned to be put to death in a certain manner, and because while the person is alive he is in the custody of the state, the state is required by law to keep him as healthy as possible until he is executed.

I suspect if the heart attack occurs during the execution it will probably be overlooked, but if it occurs before the execution, then the inmate will be treated and brought back to health.

In other words, I agree with @SheWasAll_ .

And @asmonet: because of the ethics of taking a life, typically, most states do not require that physicians administer the drugs for lethal injection, but many states do require that physicians be present to pronounce or certify death. A staff member or an EMT hooks everything up.

@Darwin: I said it, and immediately realized I had to be wrong and went trotting off to Wikipedia. Thanks, Darwin! :D Your version is far more concise.

Interesting. I didn’t see your answer when I posted mine.

Also, I’m pretty sure that just about every medical drama ever has dealt with this situation at least once. I know, I know, they’re just TV shows, but… most of them do strive for a little bit of reality.

Should they? No.

Would they? Well, that would be kind of like wiping the convict’s arm with an alcohol swab before administering a lethal injection. And I think they actually do that. So, they probably would.

If it happens after the call from the from the governor (as seen on TV) indicating there will be no stay of execution, they should proceed as planned.

If it happens prior to that, meaning there is even the slightest chance of a stay, they should attempt to save him.

Weirdly, I think they have to try and save him. Then, and only when he is healthy enough, can they kill him. Just one of the many brilliant sides of capital punishment.

Agreed. Yes you save him. Law dictates you can inflict capital punishment via a pre-ordained method of execution. Other life-threatening events fall under the prison’s responsibility to the inmate’s well-being. They medically treat death row inmates all the time.

Otherwise they would probably let death row inmates die in long, agonizing bouts of illness or injury to save money.

Nah. But I’d put a bullet in him just to make sure.

BTW, I don’t support the death penalty, regardless. Dunno how that changes my opinion.

@dalepetrie: In the link I gave up top, there are some reasons given for doing the alcohol swab.

@asmonet – thanks for that, I hadn’t looked at that link yet. I guess that mostly makes sense. Though I might counter that 3 of the 4 arguments they make are about sterilizing the equipment, which I think they should do, I’m not advocating re-using dirty needles here, I’m talking about the swab, so really only the idea that it might bring the vein closer to the surface (which seems like the band around the arm would do that just fine) is the only persuasive one to me, and even that seems to be overkill. Not that an alcohol swab costs that much money, just seems like bureaucratic nonsense, open a sterilized IV pack and plug it in there…if it takes a few tries to hit the vein, all the better…let the murdering sumbitch feel a little pain before he goes.

I do not think they should, heck they already had him on death roll.. that way it happend by nature causes and no one has to go through the feeling if they done the wrong thing or not