The U.S. Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments challenging the use of lethal injections to carry out executions in the United States. The case under consideration comes from Kentucky, where two death row inmates argue that the three-drug-injection-method used widely in executions across the country can cause unnecessary pain and suffering.

Now let me make sure I have this straight. The same country that defends its right to waterboard prisoners is worried that killers it sentences to death are going to suffer first? So prisoners we expect to live can suffer, but those who we’re going to kill anyway should be spared any agony?

There are lots of good reasons to oppose the death penalty, but for argument’s sake, let’s assume that as a people we are intent to kill bad people.Why are we concerned that their final moments might be in agony? I’m sure their victims didn’t get 3-drug cocktails and die painless deaths. Isn’t the whole eye-for-an-eye mentality the death penalty is based on founded on the notion of making criminals suffer in retaliation for their crimes?

And while I’m on a rant, something else about this doesn’t make sense. I’ve (unfortunately) been to the vet on several occasions where I had to have a beloved pet put to sleep. The animal gets a single injection and within seconds passes peacefully. The physiology isn’t so different that this same procedure can’t work on a human. If humanely dispatching criminals is the real goal here, why not just take them to the vet?