2 hours to die after lethal injection drugs given.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2014 21:04:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I would immediately become anti-death penalty if Richard's 'eye for an eye' desires were ever up for serious state/federal consideration.  

why aren't you already against it?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2014 21:48:54 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

Going by the thread title "2 Hours to Die After Lethal Drug Injection" - is that so inhumane? .


.

inhumane is not the standard.  "cruel and unusual" is.  and yes, i think it is sufficiently cruel to call it into question.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2014 22:18:48 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 24, 2014 21:53:56 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Then end result ìs the same-cruel and unusual punishment.

Aren't you a stickler about the U.S. Constitution?  The Eighth Ammendment addresses cruel and unusual punishment.

Yes. I am a stickler. Death by situation the killer used to kill is not "cruel and unusual"... it's "fair and reasonable", especially if the perpetrators knew, ahead of time, that would be the penalty. I don't advocate springing this on anyone after their trial, in secret. I say change the law and then advertise it... like the "use a gun in a crime and get {whatever}" billboards I've seen.

first of all, perpetrators are not imagining they will be caught.  so your "especially" part is absurd.

secondly, if the crime is cruel, then the punishment will be, under your system.  you can paint as much lipstick on it as you like, but it will never happen, here.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 24, 2014 22:36:35 GMT -5 @patstab said:

I have no problem with how he died. I think a lot of the murders should have to go through the kinds of deaths they put their victims through. Make it horrible, messy, and memorable, maybe less people would be out murdering people.

Drug dealers could be addicted and then made to go through withdrawal and readdicted before killing.

An eye for an eye doesn't bother me.  Just make sure they are truly guilty before doing it.

that is about half the problem for me: that thee is no way of doing that.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 7:44:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 24, 2014 22:46:58 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I lived in the Middle East, in Islamic countries for 20+ years. I'm very familiar with Shariah law. The eye-for-an-eye attitude is deeply ingrained in Shariah law. It's Old Testament stuff, Richard.

It's also non-religious. Just because it's there (Sharia Law and Old Testament) TOO doesn't make it FROM there.

and just because it predates religion doesn't mean that the principle is NOT from there, in it's modern incarnation.

but just out of curiosity, where do you think "eye for an eye" comes from, both as a legal principle, and a phrase?

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2014 19:08:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 24, 2014 11:43:19 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

The "patient" was sedated and unaware the whole time.  His girlfriend had a restraining order on him for beating her up.  He later went to her fathers body shop and killed her father and killed her as she begged for mercy.  For some reason, him gasping for a while when unconcious as less than effective drugs killed him, doesn't seem  very important in the context of what he was.

but it is, if you believe in the constitution.  but i understand how you might not. 

You understand me well. I'm very liberal that way in regards to the constitution being a living document, as long as it applies to what I believe in.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Doctors who study the combination of drugs used in Arizona claim that the amounts in this case were insufficient. One expert recently predicted with respect to the Ohio protocol, as explained in Slate: “In light of the insufficient dose of midazolam it is substantially likely that McGuire will be aware of this agony and horror.” He said there was a “substantial, palpable, objectively intolerable risk of experiencing the agony and horrifying sensation of unrelenting air hunger.”

It seems to me that the resolution to the current national impasse over secret sources of secret drugs administered in secret dosages by unknown technicians can be resolved in one of two ways: We can trust the principles of science, evidence, and transparency. Or we can trust the same states that refuse to disclose what they are doing and why, when their agents again reassure us that nobody suffered, not for a minute. And, paradoxically, that even if someone suffered for 117 minutes, he deserved far worse.

www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/arizona_botched_execution_of_joseph_r_wood_iii_lethal_injection_secrecy.html

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2014 20:40:49 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Jul 24, 2014 11:43:19 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

...  For some reason, him gasping for a while when unconscious as less than effective drugs killed him, doesn't seem  very important in the context of what he was.

The fact that I am firmly against the death penalty has probably something to do with my opinion, but for me the important thing here is what the death penalty says about us, the non-killers, non-child rapist, non-drug pushers etc. 

Have we actually evolved at all from the time the Romans flocked to the colosseum to see slaves and gladiators get killed in fights to the death with wild animal or each other? We still seem to be pretty bloodthirsty.

 I think that life w.o. parole is the better approach even in cases where guilt is 100% certain.  And it has the side benefit that if the justice system makes a mistake we can undo some of our error (you know the 99.9999% certain s/he is guilty situation only s/he isn't after all).  Once a person is dead...

In the short time frame between the Roman empire and now we have not evolved at all, the ability to kill remains the same but with a huge step up in weapon effectiveness. I'm all for life W/O parole, but it would have to be the Joe Arpaio way of incarceration. The center of death valley would be a good starting point to set up for the prisoners. To me we are in an acceptable range for error when it comes to the wrongly convicted. We can accept 30,000 plus traffic deaths every year for motorized transport. A couple of errors in the court system shouldn't be a problem.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2014 13:02:59 GMT -5 achelois said:

Jul 24, 2014 13:01:20 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Unless they push too quickly and blow the vein, or they dislodge the IV while injecting the drugs, or the dosage doesn't match the body chemistry of the person being executed, and even when it works the person doesn't die instantly.  The previous drug cocktail took an average of 2 minutes to kill, the new one clearly takes longer.

A bullet through the brain stem is instantaneous, doesn't rely on the body chemistry of the person being executed, and doesn't get screwed up by a junkie who's trashed their veins.

I dont give  a rat's ass which method is used. Possibly that will be more clear than just saying I dont have a vested interest in which method is used. Apparently you and jma just want to argue the merits of one method versus another. 

Yes, the new drug cocktail IS obviously inefficient. THAT WAS MY POINT. If they are going to go with lethal injection, they need to have a combination of drugs that will accomplish the execution quickly and reliably in the shortest amount of time. 

If they decide to use a firearm, they need to have a method, possibly as described in post 54, that will accomplish the job quickly and reliably and in the shortest amount of time. 


Whatever the chosen method, it needs to be done right. In this case, they went with lethal injection, and they screwed it up. 

Agreed, humans aren't perfect. Screw ups will happen again and again. That's life in this world, I'm used to it. If you can't accept the fallibility of humans, you are not going to be a happy camper and stress will be your constant companion.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 25, 2014 10:46:49 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jul 24, 2014 20:40:49 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

The fact that I am firmly against the death penalty has probably something to do with my opinion, but for me the important thing here is what the death penalty says about us, the non-killers, non-child rapist, non-drug pushers etc. 

Have we actually evolved at all from the time the Romans flocked to the colosseum to see slaves and gladiators get killed in fights to the death with wild animal or each other? We still seem to be pretty bloodthirsty.

 I think that life w.o. parole is the better approach even in cases where guilt is 100% certain.  And it has the side benefit that if the justice system makes a mistake we can undo some of our error (you know the 99.9999% certain s/he is guilty situation only s/he isn't after all).  Once a person is dead...

In the short time frame between the Roman empire and now we have not evolved at all, the ability to kill remains the same but with a huge step up in weapon effectiveness. I'm all for life W/O parole, but it would have to be the Joe Arpaio way of incarceration. The center of death valley would be a good starting point to set up for the prisoners. To me we are in an acceptable range for error when it comes to the wrongly convicted. We can accept 30,000 plus traffic deaths every year for motorized transport. A couple of errors in the court system shouldn't be a problem.

what about a couple of hundred? (that is verifiable)
a couple of thousand? (not so much)

PS- accidents are a bad comparison.  smoking kills 500k annually, though.  that is no accident. 

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 14:24:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 25, 2014 10:46:49 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

In the short time frame between the Roman empire and now we have not evolved at all, the ability to kill remains the same but with a huge step up in weapon effectiveness. I'm all for life W/O parole, but it would have to be the Joe Arpaio way of incarceration. The center of death valley would be a good starting point to set up for the prisoners. To me we are in an acceptable range for error when it comes to the wrongly convicted. We can accept 30,000 plus traffic deaths every year for motorized transport. A couple of errors in the court system shouldn't be a problem.

what about a couple of hundred? (that is verifiable)
a couple of thousand? (not so much)

PS- accidents are a bad comparison.  smoking kills 500k annually, though.  that is no accident. 

I was thinking along the couple hundred verifiable. Smoking, 500k, wow and people still smoke. Doesn't say much for the smarts of the general public.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Getting older has a 100% mortality rate, people still do that every day.  Doesn't mean they're stupid.

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 14:38:57 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Getting older has a 100% mortality rate, people still do that every day.  Doesn't mean they're stupid.

Best read the caption under my avatar. My statement still stands.    Getting older isn't a requirement of death.  Being alive has the only 100% mortality rate.  The smarter ones tend to get older. 

[Sum Dum Gai]

I really don't have the energy to have the smoking statistics debate again.  Slate wrote an excellent article on it a few years ago.  Title was something like 'The Jihad Against Smoking'.  The basic premise is smoking related death statistics are wildly inaccurate and always reported in the most sensational light.  For example, take lung cancer.  2% of the non smoking population gets lung cancer.  6% of regular smokers get lung cancer.  The press never reports it that way, they report that smokers are 300% more likely to get lung cancer, which is true, but purposefully reported using the biggest scariest number they could come up with.

Also, coroners and medical professionals are required to list smoking as a possible cause of death (which is then included in the smoking related death statistics) for any person who dies from anything that smoking is a risk factor for.  So, for example, if an old guy dies of a heart attack and he was a smoker they'll list smoking as a possible cause of death, even if the guy has a family history of heart problems, and all the old guys in his family die of heart complications, regardless of whether they smoke.  In his case did the smoking cause the heart attack?  Who the fuck knows, but in the official statistics he's a smoking related death.  Nobody really knows which percentage of cases like that the person in question would have died from cancer, heart disease, or whatever even if they'd never smoked.  The way the statistics are compiled if you die of damn near anything, and you smoked at some point in your life, you're likely to be counted as a death caused by smoking.

I'm not saying that smoking is healthy.  It's a nasty habit that's bad for your health.  However, the stats everyone loves to cite are inflated, and smoking isn't as bad for you as the public is usually led to believe.  The truth is the medical community can't really say how detrimental smoking is to your health.  It's definitely detrimental, there's nobody who really doubts that, but how detrimental is nearly impossible to determine, and currently over reported.

[achelois]

Jul 25, 2014 11:11:38 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jul 24, 2014 13:02:59 GMT -5 achelois said:

I dont give  a rat's ass which method is used. Possibly that will be more clear than just saying I dont have a vested interest in which method is used. Apparently you and jma just want to argue the merits of one method versus another. 

Yes, the new drug cocktail IS obviously inefficient. THAT WAS MY POINT. If they are going to go with lethal injection, they need to have a combination of drugs that will accomplish the execution quickly and reliably in the shortest amount of time. 

If they decide to use a firearm, they need to have a method, possibly as described in post 54, that will accomplish the job quickly and reliably and in the shortest amount of time. 


Whatever the chosen method, it needs to be done right. In this case, they went with lethal injection, and they screwed it up. 

Agreed, humans aren't perfect. Screw ups will happen again and again. That's life in this world, I'm used to it. If you can't accept the fallibility of humans, you are not going to be a happy camper and stress will be your constant companion.

This screw up was preventable and was due to inadequate input from medical professionals. 

There was no backup plan. People had no idea what to do when the guy didnt die. They stood around in total bewilderment. 

This was sloppiness, not error. Sorry you dont see the difference. 

Additionally, while I am now retired, I worked in a high-stress job (anesthesia) for most of my working life and handled it just fine. Thanks for your concern, though. Even though it is completely unnecessary. 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2014 9:03:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 24, 2014 21:04:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I would immediately become anti-death penalty if Richard's 'eye for an eye' desires were ever up for serious state/federal consideration.  

why aren't you already against it?

When ratification attempts begin to amend Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution from "cruel and unusual" punishments to "fair and reasonable" punishments, I will then be completely against it. 

For what it is worth, I loath the death penalty as I believe it is used far too frequently.  But there are rare exceptions when it should be used.  Nothing that immediately comes to mind though. 

[buystoys]

Jul 25, 2014 17:01:05 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 25, 2014 9:03:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

why aren't you already against it?

When ratification attempts begin to amend Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution from "cruel and unusual" punishments to "fair and reasonable" punishments, I will then be completely against it. 

For what it is worth, I loath the death penalty as I believe it is used far too frequently.  But there are rare exceptions when it should be used.  Nothing that immediately comes to mind though. 

Charles Manson?  Oh, yes.  The death penalty was abolished in that state, so his sentence was commuted to life.

That one came to mind very quickly for me.

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 9:00:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 24, 2014 20:29:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

No. Have you?

no, but i feel right at home in THIS country.  do you?

To be honest... I used to. But with our freedom eroding (mostly in the name of religion)... I don't feel AS "at home" as I used to.

Unfortunately even if moving WAS a possibility, this is still the best place to live (from a freedom AND weather standpoint... any other place that I would even consider gets too cold in the winter)

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 9:02:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 24, 2014 21:01:25 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

My belief in "eye for an eye" is not an effort to lower us to their standards, but a belief that the punishment should fit the crime (or be even MORE of a deterrent if possible)... as much as it can anyway.


If you think my "death penalty" thoughts are draconian, you should hear how I would punish rapists... If I had my way, rapists would RATHER be put to death.

and in your magical system of justice, who would carry out these sentences?

That would depend on the sentence... wouldn't it?

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 9:06:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 24, 2014 22:18:48 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Yes. I am a stickler. Death by situation the killer used to kill is not "cruel and unusual"... it's "fair and reasonable", especially if the perpetrators knew, ahead of time, that would be the penalty. I don't advocate springing this on anyone after their trial, in secret. I say change the law and then advertise it... like the "use a gun in a crime and get {whatever}" billboards I've seen.

first of all, perpetrators are not imagining they will be caught.  so your "especially" part is absurd.

secondly, if the crime is cruel, then the punishment will be, under your system.  you can paint as much lipstick on it as you like, but it will never happen, here.

I didn't say it wouldn't be cruel. I said it wouldn't be "cruel AND UNUSUAL". It's a two part judgement criteria, where BOTH have to me met for it to qualify (that's what "and" means... or didn't they teach that in grammar class where you went to school... so many important things are no longer taught nowadays, it's hard to keep up)

By definition ANY punishment is cruel... that's the nature of punishment.

ETA: And, whether they "expect to be caught" or not is irrelevant. The knowledge would be out there for them to know IF they got caught (same way it is with the "use a gun in a crime and get {extra time}" advertising)

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 9:09:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 25, 2014 7:44:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

It's also non-religious. Just because it's there (Sharia Law and Old Testament) TOO doesn't make it FROM there.

and just because it predates religion doesn't mean that the principle is NOT from there, in it's modern incarnation.

but just out of curiosity, where do you think "eye for an eye" comes from, both as a legal principle, and a phrase?

No idea as to either source (maybe the guys that invented Christianity got the "eye for an eye" phrase from somewhere else too)... but the people that invented the religions had to get it from somewhere. Maybe it dates back to cave man days.

[EVT1]

 Seems fair really.

Have to wonder how TX effed that up into a life for a TV set.

[chiver78]

Jul 25, 2014 17:01:05 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 25, 2014 9:03:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

why aren't you already against it?

When ratification attempts begin to amend Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution from "cruel and unusual" punishments to "fair and reasonable" punishments, I will then be completely against it. 

For what it is worth, I loath the death penalty as I believe it is used far too frequently.  But there are rare exceptions when it should be used.  Nothing that immediately comes to mind though. 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

yes, I'm incredibly clouded by my bias here.....and yes, I'm as against the death penalty as you...if not more so. but here's your example.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2014 19:28:34 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jul 25, 2014 17:01:05 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

When ratification attempts begin to amend Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution from "cruel and unusual" punishments to "fair and reasonable" punishments, I will then be completely against it. 

For what it is worth, I loath the death penalty as I believe it is used far too frequently.  But there are rare exceptions when it should be used.  Nothing that immediately comes to mind though. 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

yes, I'm incredibly clouded by my bias here.....and yes, I'm as against the death penalty as you...if not more so. but here's your example.

Well I suppose the crimminal who crashed dining room chairs over my aunt's body and then set her on fire to die from the beating and burning comes to mind.  But the killer only did prison time.

We all have personal stories I suppose.

[chiver78]

for real? I'm sorry.

as far as my answer - you asked....

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2014 19:28:34 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jul 25, 2014 17:01:05 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

When ratification attempts begin to amend Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution from "cruel and unusual" punishments to "fair and reasonable" punishments, I will then be completely against it. 

For what it is worth, I loath the death penalty as I believe it is used far too frequently.  But there are rare exceptions when it should be used.  Nothing that immediately comes to mind though. 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

yes, I'm incredibly clouded by my bias here.....and yes, I'm as against the death penalty as you...if not more so. but here's your example.

By the way-I would have zero problem with Tsarnaev receiving the death penalty.  When innocents die by terrorism, the perp deserves the death penalty.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2014 19:40:13 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

for real? I'm sorry.

as far as my answer - you asked....

Yea.  She lived ìn an old house with wood floors.  After clubbing her down with the wood dining chairs, he set her bed clothes on fire which started the wood floor underneath her to start to slowly burn.  She was roasted by the floor underneath her.

[chiver78]

oh wow, Tenn. I'm so sorry    

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2014 19:48:35 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

oh wow, Tenn. I'm so sorry    

Thanks.  It happened ìn Springfield.  The murder was solved pretty quickly as her son was a captain in the Springfield police force.

The sad thing was it triggered a copy cat killing of another elderly lady shortly after my aunt's murder.

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 19:42:23 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 25, 2014 19:28:34 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

yes, I'm incredibly clouded by my bias here.....and yes, I'm as against the death penalty as you...if not more so. but here's your example.

By the way-I would have zero problem with Tsarnaev receiving the death penalty.  When innocents die by terrorism, the perp deserves the death penalty.

I think when innocents die by any act of another (terrorism or murder or even a simple robbery), the perp deserves the death penalty.