A failed execution in the US, and recent executions here should re-ignite the debate over the death penalty

The American public was treated to a disturbing news spectacle last month when convicted murderer Romell Broom was taken into an execution chamber for a lethal injection but failed to die after two hours of attempts to carry out the mandated sentence by Ohio state executioners. The American media reported that the executioners failed to find a usable vein, and repeatedly stuck needles into the man's bruised and bleeding arms and legs.

Broom reportedly cried out in pain when the needles hit bone, and even tried to assist the bumbling executioners in finding a vein before they had no choice but to abandon the effort and return the traumatised prisoner to his cell.

This episode and the news exposure subsequently led to Ohio State Governor Ted Strickhand's decision to suspend executions in Ohio, prompting even more media discussion and wider debate. Some American newspapers like the Hartford Courant declared: "Enough. The death penalty is a national embarrassment", while the New York Times said it was not only "immoral" but "utterly expensive" because of years of legal appeals and the added cost of keeping prisoner on a death row. The paper backed up its stance by revealing that the state of Maryland had spent $US186 million(Bt6.2billion) on the jailing and execution of just five prisoners. Some American media, however, voiced support for a faster and cheaper method of execution, dubbed in some quarters a "fast-track" execution.

And while some states like New Mexico have recently abolished capital punishment, America is still very much the land of the death penalty.

But the global trend on this issue is moving in a more humane direction. London-based Amnesty International noted in August that the UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly for a moratorium on executions, with countries like Burundi and Togo also having recently abolished the death penalty.

With Thailand having just executed two more prisoners in August (both for drug trafficking), Amnesty International was quick to express its concerns, especially because these came after a six-year hiatus.

"Thailand should follow their example and urgently review its use of the death penalty," Amnesty stated on August 26. "There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. The government of Thailand must join the international trend away from capital punishment."

Whether Thais believe Amnesty International or not, everyone should question whether the death penalty is morally justifiable - especially in a country which professes itself to be predominantly Buddhist. Sadly, although there are thousands of Buddhist organisations in Thailand, there is no visible attempt by any of them to even discuss the issue. We should ask if true Buddhists can really reconcile themselves with state-endorsed execution or not. The answer may be clear: That capital punishment is a reminder of how Thai society fails to act in the ways it professes to believe in.

Those who care might want to see the case of the failed execution in Ohio and the "successful" executions in Thailand as a bona fide reason to launch a new discussion about the inherent moral problem of capital punishment. More discussion is needed where different views are heard - and now seems to be a good time to start.