I just don't understand why some states that have the death penalty try to force some new chemical methods on everybody that its work cannot be seen from outside ? Are they trying to apply the eye for an eye principle? Of course not. They are most probably trying to come with a less painful way of killing. So why don't they offer that as an option? How hard is it to have classic methods of execution, like hanging, available? If the condemned person himself say he doesn't want your "better" way of execution why force it on him? 

Although I am speaking about an if situation for the death penalty, I still would want to say that, of course, is with assumption of certainty because the only thing that has a higher priority than executing a guilty killer is not executing an innocent person. But things like that movie theater shooting in Colorado, does anyone, or even the accused shooter himself have any doubt that he shot those people? If not, then letting him stay alive absent forgiveness of those who have the right to forgive in that shooting is a joke not justice.