Someone Needs To Explain This

Arkansas executed a murderer last night after years of legal wrangling about his sentence.  This is part of the schedule of eight executions in eleven days that the state set forth.  The chemicals used for lethal injections by that state included one that is due to go beyond its expiration date at the end of the month, so the calendar got compressed to avoid the expense of buying more of this chemical, if it is even still available.  The first three executions were stopped by courts in more of the usual legal games associated with executions.  This is the first one that actually took place.

I don't want to rehash all of the arguments for and against the death penalty.  Rather, I want to focus on the strange argument being made by opponents to the effect that having so many executions in a short period is a bad policy.  I don't understand why.  Sure, I get that some people oppose the death penalty, but if the state has decided that it will use that penalty, why is there something wrong if there are multiple executions in a two week period?  Could it be possible that the Constitution does not bar the execution of a murderer but that it does bar the execution of multiple murderers in a short time?  Nope. 

There needs to be some coherent explanation (if there is one) put forward by the death penalty opponents for this issue.  Otherwise, it is just another unintelligible argument that will never carry the day.