Clarence Ray Allen has been on California’s death row for 23 years. He’ll turn 76 the day before he’s executed. According to Allen, that’s too old to be executed.

His lawyers are claiming that it’s cruel and unusual to execute a man who uses a wheelchair and can barely see or hear. They’re appealing to the Supreme Court to stop the execution and allow the feeble husk of a man die of natural causes. Or a shiv in the throat. Or a brain hemorrhage after being beaten and gang raped in the shower room.

Where is the real cruelty–in killing a decrepit shadow of a human being with a lethal injection, or in forcing him to live on as a weak, disabled citizen of one of the most barbaric and dangerous environments in America? One of Allen’s attorneys says the execution amount to “the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering.” Is a needle in the arm more painful than finishing a meaningless, wasted life in a nearly useless body? For someone in Allen’s condition and surroundings, execution would be a mercy killing, not a punishment.

Another question mark in the debate is the fact that Allen was resuscitated last year after suffering a heart attack. Why would the prison system stop a death row inmate from dying? Allen tried to save the prison officials effort and money by executing himself, and instead they revived him so he could continue eating and suffering and waiting for his scheduled demise. If they wanted him to keep living, why didn’t they cancel his execution already? Why is the prison system charged with keeping prisoners alive and as healthy as possible, when it will eventually kill the same prisoners?

We need to reexamine our priorities with the punishment of capital felons. If nothing else, let’s at least be consistent.