Just another botched execution...

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Armistead

We should make it pay for view to cover the cost and maybe get a message across..

Which message would that be?

[Stealhead]

That paying to watch is fun.

[Cybermat47]

If the death penalty has to be administered, make sure that the person is guilty, and make the execution as humane as possible. Just because the criminal is a cruel bastard doesn't mean we have to be

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

If the death penalty has to be administered, make sure that the person is guilty, and make the execution as humane as possible. Just because the criminal is a cruel bastard doesn't mean we have to be

Guilty or not guilty has nothing to do with this thread.
Like Oberon, you are debating the wrong point here.

We are led to believe by the op's article that the crim was rightfully convicted and tried to be executed, as per that state's law.
Let's treat this as a guilty verdict and not debate the possibilities and implications of wrongful convictions in this thread.
Which doesn't address the point of this thread at all.


It's clear the op posted the thread to discuss the morality or in his opinion the lack of morality in the treatment of lethal injection.

The conviction or wrongful conviction is a entirely different debate which isn't the point of this thread.

Are lethal injections barbaric?
No.
A normal time line of administration and the time of death is mostly 5 to 18 minutes.
Admittedly, the administration of barbituates is not necessary, as has been admitted by medical staff and also veternarians. I use vets because 2 drug(s) that i know of are used to put down animals has and is being used to execute humans.

A 1 drug injection has been introduced in most states, but not all.
The 3 drug injection is still being used by some states, and 2 of these drugs are barbituates.
The 3rd is the 1 that kills you.


As with everything in life, mistakes are and can be made.
You (as in general) cannot tell me that the state has the simple goal in mind that when executing someone that the primary objective is to make that person suffer.
Seems some people are arguing that that may be the case.
There are of course restrictions on drugs to any organisation in place that practices executions.
These organisations often then purchase the drug or drugs from underground or obscure non-reputable pharmacies to administer the execution.
Hence where some of these botched executions take place.


If the people are purely debating the moral implications of a lethal injections based on botched reports, which have been sensationalized by the media, (see my post further down to highlight the latimes article), then that needs to be looked at and revised.
Rather than just bleating and making a uneducated often and ill-informed opinion.
Or at least a more solid and reasonable debate needs to be put forward to counter the administration of lethal injections, to persuade the victim's families and also the state and us on the side of 'why in the hell are we debating what drug was used and how it was administered, considering the often violent crime(s) committed by the accused which sort of puts that debate into a revision area.

Purely debating that lethal injections are barbaric is a weak argument.

Purely debating that lethal injections are barbaric is a weak argument.

Yet you have already provided enough proof that they are.
If it wasn't barbaric then there wouldn't be any problem sourcing the materials from open and reputable manufacturers.
Since you are talking about live testing of unproven products of an unknown quality from questionable sources then you are talking about medical experimentation on live human subjects with the intention of causing death.
Well my dear, that sounds like a textbook definition of barbaric behaviour.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yet you have already provided enough proof that they are.
If it wasn't barbaric then there wouldn't be any problem sourcing the materials from open and reputable manufacturers.
Since you are talking about live testing of unproven products of an unknown quality from questionable sources then you are talking about medical experimentation on live human subjects with the intention of causing death.
Well my dear, that sounds like a textbook definition of barbaric behaviour.

You and i seem to have a different view on the term barbaric then.

And if you think that posting the latimes article and the quotes i pulled from that article prove that i agree that i think lethal injections are barbaric then i'm sorry my dear, but you may be putting words in my mouth.

The use of drugs that are used for our furry friends to execute humans also doesn't prove that lethal injections are barbaric.

Me posting the fact that because of supply issues and costs associated with obtaining drugs to execute criminals from drug suppliers also doesn't prove that lethal injections are barbaric.
You may say that the drug companies stopped because they think it's unconstitutional and inhumane.
That is their viewpoint.
A viewpoint doesn't make it fact.
Especially when you consider that most executions are carried out peacefully and quite normally.


The only reason i see so far bandied about by the antis is that because a clenched fist, wheezing up to 600 times (all allegedly), breathing, and being alive longer than the normal duration of anywhere btw 5 and 18 minutes is barbaric, then well, we have a difference of opinion.
And a different definition of barbaric.
Which can happen.

Barbaric-exceedingly brutal, savage, vicious, heinous, murderous,
inhumane.

Lots of things come to mind when looking at those definitions.

Lethal injections aren't one of them.

If there were no botched executions via lethal injection, would we be debating this thread? Would this thread even exist?
Doubt it very much.

[vanjast]

For a 'normal society' to function there has to be some form of 'limits and control'.

If you just stand back and say I'm not going to be a savage (I'm like too above that) while savage's are killing you off - you are going to be killed sooner than later.

The concept of the Death Penalty and other forms of punishment didn't just appear out of thin air - it became a necessity for society to function in a peaceful way.

Read HG Wells' Time Traveller.. it explains the pacifist scenario very aptly.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Which message would that be?

"Killing is wrong. Now watch us kill this guy!"

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Which message would that be?

Don't trust the govt. for a proper execution!

Something to think about before you kill people.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

That paying to watch is fun.

Originally Posted by Armistead

We should make it pay for view to cover the cost and maybe get a message across.. Don't trust the govt. for a proper execution!

Something to think about before you kill people.

A conservative federal appeals judge called for replacing lethal injection with firing squads: "Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and beautiful — like something any one of us might experience in our final moments," U.S. 9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in a dissent in the Arizona death penalty case of Joseph Rudolph Wood III.
"But executions are, in fact, brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should we. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf....I personally think we should go to the guillotine, but shooting is probably the right way to go," Kozinski said." I personally disagree as wild crime ridden river-town Napa has a history of its own. Napa has the dubious distinction of being the site of the last public hanging in the state. It happened back in 1897 for a murder that so enraged the Napa community that instead of sending the criminal to San Quentin Prison, the judge turned the responsibility over to the Napa sheriff so the hanging could occur in the Napa County Jail yard. In preparing for the hanging, the sheriff hired carpenters to build a corrugated iron fence enclosure in the county jail's yard. It was 40 feet long and 34 feet wide. He also ordered a platform for visitors to view the hanging. 400 tickets were sold and the rope cut into souvenirs; the noose was retained by the sheriff.
"January 15, 1897, Roe was led from the jail to the wooden gallows. A photographer was present to take the official photo. One of the doctors who attended Roe's autopsy managed to get hold of the body and took the bones to a roof in downtown Napa to bleach them. He then put the skeleton back together. It reportedly was used to teach high school students taking biology courses. Eventually it disappeared in the '60s, and its whereabouts are unknown today." A proper hanging can be a career stepping stone: "In 1870, Grover Cleveland was elected sheriff of Erie County, New York, in which capacity he personally oversaw the hanging of two condemned men. On September 6, 1872, Grover Cleveland personally served as the hangman to the convicted murderer Patrick Morrissey. So infamous was the murderer, his execution was covered by the New York Times. Morrisey had stabbed his widowed mother to death while drunk.
The Erie County Sheriff was empowered to carry out death sentences, and instead of delegating the job to one of his deputies or an assistant, he decided to take responsibility for the handing of Morrissey himself. He tripped the engine of execution with his own hands, as he would again, on February 14, 1873, when he again personally hanged another murderer, John Gaffney. Both executions took place in public. The Republicans hung on him the pejorative nickname "The Buffalo Hangman.". Within 11 years the chief executioner was a 'hands on' chief executive.